'You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.'
Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly trust X's assertions.
The other way for the layperson to judge specialists is to learn enough about their field in order to evaluate their predictions. Granted, this involves much, much more effort than lazily following the reputation talk. But it also makes it much safer to trust the people involved, and to maybe stop trusting them if they go astray at some point.
To bring forth examples, evolution is quite easy to verify after reading a bit of biology. For example, DNA analysis comes in a full century after the "Origin of Species" and shows us how amazingly related all living things are, deep within; thus giving precise shapes to the "trees of life" that Darwin first sketched in his notebooks. And there are many, many other predictions of the theory of evolution that can be easily checked by the unprejudiced amateur. You'll rarely find articles that say "Dawkins believes in evolution, and Dawkins is a great scientist, therefore evolution is true".
On the other hand, things like climate science seem (to me at least) to rely much more on the argument from authority for gaining lay support. If some prominent climate scientist had predicted in the 90's that "average temperature in the 2000-2010 decade, as indicated by methodology X, will be 1.4 plus or minus 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than in the 1990s", I would have a much easier time trusting his or her claims now. But things seem to be moving in the opposite direction with this field, e.g. as witnessed by the very replacement of "global warming" (somewhat verifiable) with "climate change" (unfalsifiable), and the popular attribution of all kinds of meteorological phenomena to this cause, in the same non-comprehending way that, not so long ago, they were ascribed to the god of thunder.
I see what you mean but I think you are overlooking how easy it is to muddy the waters. You come up with a good evidence of evolution. Great: but it will take the anti-evolution just one guy that makes a somehow plausible alternative scenario, or finds one whole in your argument and suddenly people are back to square one.
Despite we are _not_ back on square one. Between a theory that almost works (like evolution) and one that is pure conjecture, the fact that there's a whole in the former all it shows is that we need to improve the theory.
It is the same thing in climate modelling. It takes a nobody to say something which sound somehow plausible for the scientist to need to prove themselves again, often taking several years and a lot of effort. Most scientist, including at the IPCC, do describe hypothetical scenarios with all their doubts, including error bars etc... They also state all their assumptions, and their full method.
Then one guy says: "Hey, it's been crazy cold in England this winter... so much for global warming", or "between 2001-2002 the global temperature went down" and suddenly everyone feel they are back to "we don't know". But why? The data from the IPCC is the result of many different models, with many different assumptions. The opposition has provided no better model: all they need to do to keep the status quo is point out some small unknown or flaw. That's WRONG!
And btw, climate science is possibly one of the hardest disciplines around: you are making a prediction in the future of a chaotic system. But the anti-science groups can find objections just as easily to pretty much any bit of science they dislike.
It's true that there's a certain amount of fuzziness, but also there's a gradient of trust between 100% and zero. Predictions that consistently come true start to dwarf alternative explanations after a while. Darwin said that the great apes are our closest living relatives, and 150 years later research finds the genetic code similarities in the 90+% range. That's pretty strong.
On the other hand, it is indeed possible that the field of study is a chaotic system, and accurate predictions impossible. But then I will argue that's not a branch of natural science, but rather of history. A good historian can tell you in small details the reasons why Lincoln got elected in 1860, but is as clueless as the next guy as to the next presidential election. Would you trust him if he said Republicans are always best?
Similarly, there's a lot of great work done in historical climatology, with pollen analysis, ice cores etc. and we can find out a great many things about the past. Computer models can be built to fit this history perfectly (as I'm sure that even I can code some curve that spits out the order of Democrat and Republican presidents, or even last year's Dow Jones). But unless we see these models also making verifiable and accurate predictions (without 50% margins of error! what if chimp genome turned out to be 49% identical to ours?), it might well be that the system is inherently chaotic and muddy. Then it might simply not lend itself to scientific analysis, at least not with our present methods.
Indeed I agree that there exist a gradient of trust. But it is this that seems to be so difficult for the non-scientific literate to understand. In part I think it's a problem that society seem to use "shown scientifically" for "it's true". If there is one thing that people should learn at school is statistics and the scientific method: a LOT more useful than trigonometry nowadays!
However my point is that it's not enough to have consistent predictions to show you are right. The examples of alternative medicine or even evolution are a good case. In the former we can do new tests, and we have: a lot of money has been spent trying and trying again different studies on homeopathy and friends. However the alternative practitioners always come up with an excuse why the scientist is wrong, or his result not meaningful. Their answers are not scientific in any way, but they can muddy the water enough that the audience feels they can't know either way.
As for climatology, I agree with you that it's hard to call those predictions. Partially I think the very clear statements of the scientists get lost and simplified through different layers of repetitions so that when you read it in the mainstream newspaper you get a very partial version.
There is also a problem that part of IPCC was _not_ strictly science. The IPCC has 3 panels from what I remember: the scientific stuff, the effect these will have on society, and ways to prevent them. The former gives proper scientific assessment but the later two less so. One of the problem of the IPCC is that many of its complains came from mistakes in the latter two groups, but they cast a shadow of doubt to the first one (the scientific one) despite the three groups have little connection to each other. (the stuff about the Himalaya melting, for example was something added by the second group, not the first one).
I am not sure how easy it is to predict climate. We do better than random guesses, so I guess there's some help there, but it's not great so it shouldn't be reported as such. (of course if people knew what error bars and standard deviation were it wouldn't be so difficult).
One problem though with chaotic systems is how difficult is to "fix" them. Maybe you can increase a variable (say pollution) up to 1000 (in an arbitrary scale) without any effect. Then if you take it that extra 10 points the whole system goes bad. People seem to think that in that case we can simply fix it by lowering the variable again, but that's not how it works. If your system moved from one attractor to another (in state space) it may be extremely hard to move back. This is why I think our best bet by far is to keep things as they are: better to err on the side of caution. (of course those are just my opinions: scientist should make predictions, but then it's society that decide what to do with them ^_^).
> The IPCC has 3 panels from what I remember: the scientific stuff, the effect these will have on society, and ways to prevent them. The former gives proper scientific assessment but the later two less so. One of the problem of the IPCC is that many of its complains came from mistakes in the latter two groups, but they cast a shadow of doubt to the first one (the scientific one) despite the three groups have little connection to each other. (the stuff about the Himalaya melting, for example was something added by the second group, not the first one).
Which group was Hansen part of when he said that "deniers" should be jailed?
Scientists are people and often behave as such.
For example, most of the scientists who sign the various petitions don't have relevant qualifications and haven't done relevant work. Their signatures are tribal support, not scientific evaluations.
1) I had to Google this, but I don't think James Hansen was part of IPCC
2) I agree scientist are people too: you need to distinguish between their work (e.g. their papers) and the rest of their lives. Only the formers have to undergo scientific scrutiny. Outside of that they are normal people like everyone else.
3) When a scientist speaks about something which is not his field, of course his titles and such don't count for much. But my impression is that people complain of scientist even when they speak of what they know, and back their statements with evidence from their studies.
> 1) I had to Google this, but I don't think James Hansen was part of IPCC
Hansen wasn't the only climate scientist who expressed that point of view.
Also, the "jail them" sentiment isn't uncommon among the IPCC.
I'd like to see evidence that the IPCC scientists decried such stuff, or, better yet, the "beyond the science" proclamations, but I don't expect it because that almost never happens when science and policy are mixed.
And that's a shame, because policy is a place where we desparately need the best science. Instead, we get the worst science, reserving the best science for things that don't have much impact on human lives.
I agree with most of your points, and the info about the IPCC's inner workings is particularly interesting. And yes, we can't expect the larger part of the public to become sufficiently informed to properly evaluate even the bases of scientific discourse (at least until, as you point out, the educational system changes considerably).
My point was directed more at the _intellectually curious_ laypersons (which is, I believe, a superset of HN's readership). It's practically impossible, in this age of extremely specialized science, for outsiders to understand exactly how various scientific conclusions are arrived at. Fortunately, the task of verification is much easier, and with a small amount of self-training it is possible, I believe, to judge whether or not a certain set of scientists consistently make verifiable predictions that come true.
The crucial bit:
"The IPCC does not carry out primary research, and hence any mistakes in the IPCC reports do not imply that any climate research itself is wrong. A reference to a poor report or an editorial lapse by IPCC authors obviously does not undermine climate science. Doubting basic results of climate science based on the recent claims against the IPCC is particularly ironic since none of the real or supposed errors being discussed are even in the Working Group 1 report, where the climate science basis is laid out."
and about the Himilayan glaciars mistake:
"This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts"
My point was directed more at the _intellectually curious_ laypersons (which is, I believe, a superset of HN's readership). It's practically impossible, in this age of extremely specialized science, for outsiders to understand exactly how various scientific conclusions are arrived at. Fortunately, the task of verification is much easier, and with a small amount of self-training it is possible, I believe, to judge whether or not a certain set of scientists consistently make verifiable predictions that come true.
An excellent point. I would further add that this means there's a great societal benefit to educating a large number of people up to the level of general mathematical and logical understanding and there's concomitant societal cost for failing to have such an educated public. When enough people are willing to believe nonsense, even those who don't believe it suffer.
However, you don't need to be knowledgeable of a particular field to find faults in a scientific study.
Logic, reasoning and mathematics can be used to identify methodological errors regardless of the subject matter or your knowledge of it.
Also, many seem to forget, science is a process not a conclusion.
We can certainly say a scientific theory is a strong theory supported by numerous scientific studies, evidence and rigorous testing. But all scientifically supported theories, by definition of using that methodology, are subject to modification and falsification based on new research.
I only point this out because of the predilection of some to brand as "kooks" people who dare question scientific conclusions. In fact questioning science is part of science.
You need to know the basic vocabulary. When someone says that two genomes are 95% identical, that has a very precise meaning. You need to know genomes are made of chromosomes, containing long strings built with four letters, that amino-acids are made of groups of three of these letters, and that the possible mutations include deletions and insertions as well as substitutions. Once you know this, the claim is a mathematical statement, and you can test it in many ways.
And my point, which you get to at the end of your msg, is that a mathematical or logical error can invalidate a hypothesis regardless of the subject matter of the datapoints being measured.
If you say 10 nuclear reactors + 10 nuclear reactors = 25 nuclear reactors. I can prove that wrong mathematically without knowing anything about nuclear reactors.
That's all I'm saying-- you don't have to necessarily have to know something about the subject matter to prove it wrong logically.
Likewise, I can evaluate a statement on the correlation of datapoints of a genome without knowing anything about what a genome does or is. (assuming you have defined the datapoints)
Basically I think we agree but have slightly different definitions of mathematics and logics. I just think that purely mathematical errors are relatively rare (and hard to observe, since even where formal proofs are given they often skip a lot of steps, and require higher mathematics).
"I just think that purely mathematical errors are relatively rare"
It's more common than you would think.
Math error equals loss of Mars orbiter
NASA reported Sept. 30 that it had lost the $125 million Mars Climate Orbiter because the force exerted by the orbiter's thrusters remained in the system of units based on pounds and feet rather than being converted to metric.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_15_156/ai_571...
"On the other hand, things like climate science seem (to me at least) to rely much more on the argument from authority for gaining lay support."
Have you looked at any of the actual research? It sounds more like you're criticizing the very pseudo-science that the climate science community is battling.
The actual researchers are using a combination of meteorological models, telemetry (if you've seen the film "Twister" you've seen a Hollywood-ized version of an actual piece of science in their flock of birds), and empirical observational evidence (e.g. presented in "Planet Ice").
A lot of organizations that fund a lot of the climate research, including NOAA, have been going to great lengths to stifle it and obfuscate the actual message that they send out to the public.
I'm sure there is a lot of good science happening in climatology. I'm not so sure, however, how much of the sound science is of the predictive variety, and how much is merely concerned with historical reconstructions. Being able to do the latter doesn't give you the ability to do the former, especially if the system is complex enough / chaotic.
What I definitely can take issue with is the way the science is presented to laypersons, especially laypersons with an intellectual bent. Granted this is mainly not the work of the scientists themselves, but neither do they seem to do anything to discourage it.
The muddled presentation is due a combination of factors.
One is that the scientists tend not to counter the pseudo-scientific idiocy that's rampant -- even though it's mind-numbingly obvious to anyone who isn't a complete idiot that it's pure BS with Star Trek style technobabble strewn throughout, the technobabble without any real science to counter it convinces the unwashed masses. The scientists would be doing themselves a huge favor if they spoke out more.
Which leads to point 2, which is that exactly the same organizations that fund a lot of that science are also going out of their way to muddle the message and stifle the scientists. NOAA has actually been intentionally altering the messages that the scientists have been releasing, and also preventing the scientists from speaking with anyone directly.
Combine that with the press and the government intentionally working to hide the message, and it's no surprise that most of what you end up seeing is pseudo-science rather than real science. It's not much different from the government's claims that the Gulf oil spill is 75% cleaned up...
Singh has, I think, won the first battle in two very long wars.
The first is, of course, the science one. The other being our idiotic libel laws.
From this it's clear he's very switched on too (well, that was probably not in doubt but still). This, in particular, is an important point we face:
''Scientists aren’t necessarily good communicators, because they aren’t trained to be good communicators. A researcher could be doing really important work on global warming, and then somebody writes a column in a national newspaper that completely undermines what they’re saying.''
About your last quote, I think what we need is to have scientist dedicated to the communication side of science: aka scientific journalists. I know there are a few, but we need a lot more, and like many bits of science they'll need to be sometimes paid with public money.
This seems to me the only way that you can keep the scientist working on the science, and still answer all the questions that people have. Basically large groups need their own public relation department. :)
True, but what is the alternative? To be at the receiving end of all the mud-slinging? (Kind of like Obama and the Democrats in the USA ;) )
At least you would end up with people despising the think-tanks and not the scientist. :) Too optimistic? Of course in an ideal world journalist would start doing proper research and fact checking, but now we are talking sci-fi. ;)
And he hasn't won the libel war battle, the other side simply retracted the case.
So no court decision, no new case law and nothing to stop them issuing a new writ tomorrow and doing it all over again - or them doing it to somebody else who can't afford $200,000 in legal fees to defend themselves.
Ben Goldacre is another good scientific crusader. It's worth reading his book Bad Science for his rants against the ridiculous poop-inspecting TV nutritionist "Dr" Gillian McKeith, and the more serious issue of quack medicine and its propaganda war against HIV/AIDS medication in South Africa.
I fear that as the scientifically correct action keeps getting further and further divorced from the 'common sense' action on any given issue, the two worlds will continue to divide, and as the distance increases, science will get harder and harder to follow.
The bridging has to be done by cultural evolution, so that the prejudices that form by 18 are not as counter-science as they are now, but even so, they cannot be adapted to future science when it's not yet in existence.
So we need a culture based on constant learning and adapting our views to evidence. Based on the amount of cognitive bias we have built-in, the 'uncoolness' of rationality, and the speed of scientific progress, I'm not hopeful save for deep de-biasing interventions on our hardware.
Let's see what 'anti-' movement that's going to raise.
If you're interested in Science Fiction, you might want to read Neal Stephensons 'Anathem'. It plays exactly with your scenario: Scientific groups isolating themselves intentionally from the 'secular' world.
Funny enough, their scientists look like priest to the common people. And the common people are basically required to blindly accept what these priest... well... preach. Science turns into religion.
It's always something I think about, when I see another survey whether you 'believe' in evolution or climate change.
"That said, they can also find support for their ideas in the mainstream media—because when the mainstream media gives a so-called balanced view, it’s often misleading. The media thinks that because one side says climate change is real and dangerous, the other view is that it’s not real and not dangerous. That doesn’t reflect the fact that something like 98 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and dangerous. And this happens with everything from genetically modified foods to evolution."
It is not just in science. It is in everything, including politics. The (modern) concept of the unbiased view has turned into a "ask both sides of the argument". Which can work when (say) you are in an election campaign. But take a scientist and a charismatic charlatan: the scientist tries to give the right view (with all the ifs and buts) and the charlatan gives a appealing and simple to understand story... though completely wrong. I don't blame the reader/viewer for not being persuaded by the scientist.
The idea that, for example, a group of us could join forces and argue that the oil spill is really a good thing for the biology of the mexican gulf, and we would be given equal time with the guy who's done 10 years of study in it... that does not help the viewer.
The journalist seem to have forgotten their role of gatekeepers, and fact checking. They seem to be just there repeating verbatim what he or she says: sure, it makes their job easier, but it really doesn't help their readership.
The Guardian has no doubt protected itself from legal responsibility of certain writers: probably those which aren't direct employees. So I imagine the 200,000 comes from legal fees.
Singh is a very talented science writer. The Code Book still ranks as one of the most engaging nonfiction books I've read. He managed to make a history of encryption into something of a gripping page-turner.
I hope everyone realizes the "War on Science" is being marketed to a specific demographic the same way the "War on Christmas" was. If you rolled your eyes then...
Several years ago in the U.S., many of the Religious Right-oriented media outlets complained of stores putting up "Happy Holidays" signs instead of the traditional "Merry Christmas" signs. Despite the fact that this had already been relatively common practice for some time. Nonetheless, the "issue" was created and lots of people decided to be outraged about it. Everyone else rolled their eyes.
>> Antiscientific and pseudoscientific attitudes will get corrected; it’s just a question of how painful that process is going to be.
Not necessarily true.
Things like astrology, alternative healing, etc. have been there for thousands of years and they just don't seem to be going away.
Roger Penrose makes some very interesting remarks on origins of these in his book "The Road to Reality". He says that ancient humans observed the influence the Sun had on their lives (day/nights, seasons, etc.) and also of the moon (tides, etc.). And there came a wrong inference that "all" heavenly objects have such an influence (astrology). He also speculates ancient humans figuring out geometrical shapes and finding naturally occurring crystals having those perfect shapes. And there came another wrong inference that such perfect natural objects must have powers to cure all that is not perfect (crystal healing).
More than a few thousands of years later, going from development of first scientific thought process in human beings (e.g.: astronomy) all the way to today, plenty of people still believe in these things (e.g.: astrology).
The third thing Penrose mentions amongst some of the first things humans learned is earth being flat, which again was a wrong inference (looks flat at human scales, must be flat at larger scales too). It took so much pain to fix this and that could only be done because a very simple evidence could ultimately be produced that everyone could see and understand by seeing a single photograph (of the round earth taken from the space). (Aside: And now humans wonder if the universe is flat. Penrose has beautifully connected some most ancient things in the human thought process to the most modern ones.)
I doubt such simple evidence is ever going to come against astrology and alternative healing, for one that it would be a lack of evidence instead. What was a "photograph" of a "round" earth there, would here be a "plot" of an uncorrelated variable (say improvement in health) against dependent variable (use of crystals) showing a "round" blob (no correlation) instead of a round earth. Just that this time, majority of humans are not able to follow (what some of us call) such simple a plot!
I think the most important metric on whether or not to trust someone is there research methodology. Everything regarding MMR has been tested via a double blind study (ie the people analyzing the data are different and separated from the people collecting the data).
The "evidence" about a link between chiropractic care and asthma was not tested with such rigor. Similarly, virtually all of the evidence suggesting anthropogenic global warming is published by the same people who collect the data. They willfully ignore counter evidence and they rely on loads of proxy data that can easily be manipulated. If you haven't read Michael Crichton's essay on global warming, I highly recommend it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html
This cuts both ways. In the States, many people have lost their trust in the integrity of scientific research and the integrity of regulatory bodies. So the CDC might recommend something, or the FDA might approve some drug, and to people that trust these organizations, that's the golden stamp of approval. For others, any such recommendations are inherently suspect.
This goes deeper than education, intelligence, etc, and you can't solve it though more education per se, unless that education addresses the source of the distrust.
In areas where scientific research has been compromised by non-scientific interests, what can you do? Education is no longer education but propaganda, further deepening people's distrust.
Absolutely, and all these bodies that the public no longer trusts should be defunded 200%. Why throw good money after bad? Defund congress, the presidency, economist liars, education bureaucrats, and especially the thieves that make up academia with its 50k a year tuitions and grad student slave labor. But getting back to Singh, he's pretty clearly an idiot on a lot of things. Cars are not the issue, global warming is man made only to the degree pigs can fly and that you believe that a functionaly retarded government buraucrat should randomly assign 20% of your money to various propaganda projects.
Chiropractors are quacks, but regular doctors are even bigger quacks. And least the chiropractors do something mildly positive for your money. Surgeons are ok, but they are very deficient in whole body well being.
I support the right of chiropractors to say that singh is an idiot and that of signh to say they are liars. Both viewpoints are correct and they should argue for 10s of years. The only reason 200k had to be spent was because of the corrupt laws of the fascist government of britain. The parties should have argued without money or lawyers.
Don't trust anyone, and don't let anyone hold your nice money. The sucker MBAs/politicians will rob you blind every time the second you trust them with any amount of money.
I wouldnt quite say so. Perhaps, it appears that way with some of those lines...
---Absolutely, and all these bodies that the public no longer trusts should be defunded 200%. Why throw good money after bad?---
Good point. There was an idea that voters should number from 1 to N the importancy of their money going to that department. And after the votes tallied, the % of the national budget would go proportionately to those departments.
---Defund congress, the presidency, economist liars, education bureaucrats,---
Pointless. But the next part:
---and especially the thieves that make up academia with its 50k a year tuitions and grad student slave labor.
I believe e just had some interesting conversations about "How to Fail a PhD" that described the situation with upper academia. One person even alluded that the upper tiers are the last holdouts of the ancient guild system, a view I agree with. And especially, with public universities, there's no reason the exorbitant price on said degree. But he hit this one squarely.
---But getting back to Singh, he's pretty clearly an idiot on a lot of things. Cars are not the issue, global warming is man made only to the degree pigs can fly and that you believe that a functionaly retarded government buraucrat should randomly assign 20% of your money to various propaganda projects.---
When I was reading American Scientist, I paid close attention to the "Sigma XI UN Global Warming Report". It has detailed factoids of when this happens or why and such and such. And of course, the doom and gloom of (shudder) GLOBAL WARMING.
And the 2nd paragraph, not quite in the paper, but skewed aside the main article was a note saying that no test was made to determine the effects of humans.
Hmm, back up there. I can tentatively accept that GW is haappening. However, we do not know the causes. And we're arrogant enough to believe we can solve it without scientific proof of why? And some of these ideas are "Dump lime in the ocean"??
---Chiropractors are quacks, but regular doctors are even bigger quacks. And least the chiropractors do something mildly positive for your money. Surgeons are ok, but they are very deficient in whole body well being.---
Id agree. I've never been to a chiropracter, but have been to GP's before. Most of them aren't worth a damn except for the pills they push. Heck, even the doctor I was going to for my shoulder surgery was a narco-pusher. I needed them, and he provided. He would have done it over the phone, but DEA says they cant.
The fact is, yes, they have medical experience, but I know my body better than they do. And for the longest time, doctors did not listen. I, instead, found a malleable doctor and bend him to my will. If I need drugs, I get drugs. If I need tests, he finds a way to push it through insurance.
---I support the right of chiropractors to say that singh is an idiot and that of signh to say they are liars. Both viewpoints are correct and they should argue for 10s of years. The only reason 200k had to be spent was because of the corrupt laws of the fascist government of britain. The parties should have argued without money or lawyers.---
A damn true statement.
---Don't trust anyone, and don't let anyone hold your nice money. The sucker MBAs/politicians will rob you blind every time the second you trust them with any amount of money.---
I was chatting with Simon about this a few weeks ago. He's definitely in this for the long haul, but is really looking forward to getting back to writing about science, not libel.
Nice to hear. I own all three of his science books and they are excellent. I wish someone else had spent five years fighting libel charges, and he had spent five years writing new books.
This is what scares me. It is in the nature of science that tests take a lot of time and effort. On the other hand, if you do _not_ follow science you can come up with a new theory every day. And to make it all the worst the scientist can be sued.
Basically this way the anti-science groups can grind to a halt all of science. I don't want to think all the time good scientist can lose defending themselves from non-scientist instead of doing what they were trying to do: science.
I think what he is saying make sense. For instance there is a huge mountain of evidence for anthropogenic global warming and the need to cut down our emissions. I'd say on 9/10 things I probably agree with the scientists, with the exception of GMO foods which to me are a really bad idea with potentially catastrophic consequences.
However, I have a problem with laymen needing to sit down and accept whatever scientists say for the simple fact that science is not some pristine incorruptible institution dedicated only to truth. Scientists are PEOPLE and are subject to the same political issues, careerism, bias to not make funders angry, etc. that everyone else is.
Science is subject to a lot of influence from the people holding the purse strings, which are often industry. Take the recent story that came out of Harvard Medical School about how pharma has been influencing the ways that drugs are being prescribed: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-co... - should we non-scientists not question scientists, physicians, and other "authorities" when this type of thing is happening?
It is a GOOD thing when people question what scientists say. What is needed are better ways for scientists and non-scientists to engage in dialogue, and more often. Believe it ot not there might be a few things scientists can learn from the non-scientists.
I think that a lot of this gets discussed by regular people on broadcast channels (talk radio, cable news) that are really terrible mediums for communicating complex ideas. It would be nice if TV and radio weren't so cluttered with advertising, which makes it almost impossible to do more than make short statements. The exceptions that are good for communiating ideas through broadcast (such as Michio Kaku's radio show) prove the rule by being commercial-free.
Another note, scientists have to understand how political discourse and beliefs work. The domain is NOT based on rational inquiry and peer review. There is no "correct answer" as to whether Social Security should be privatized or if the US should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. The work of George Lakoff is a must-read on this topic; we form much of our political beliefs based on non-rational moral frameworks that stem from our childhood and our ideas about the family (strict father vs. nurturant parent morality), and mapping our ideas about how the family should work onto the "nation as family" morality.
I agree that scientist are not above human mistakes and bias like everyone else. But there is a way to tackle that. The scientific method tries to minimise the errors cause by bias and human mistakes. That's why we can eventually decide that the tobacco industry's results were wrong: because they had to show all their procedure and some other scientist could explain where they went wrong.
But when you take statements from alternative medicine, which are: a) not based on any scientific theory, b) often only defended by anecdotal evidence, c) their speaker is charismatic and a proficient PR, then it gets really really hard.
You may point out to research showing that homeopathy doesn't work. To avoid being branded as hiding data or such, you say everything very carefully, explaining anything you know and you don't know, and the uncertainty in the results and so. The other then replies: "You can give me all the numbers you want, but I've _seen_ cases of people who got a lot better." and then show you a few photos of before and after: "Why---he concludes---do you not want the audience to have access to the most effective treatment?".
The former was boring, hard to understand, and objective/dry. The latter spoke straight to the heart, and show evidence.
And remember that a lot of problem arise because people _want_ to believe the charlatan. They want to believe that the incurable cancer that the doctor prescribed can be cured, or that they can keep their lifestyle without destroying the world, or that the religion the believed for for so long is correct an we humans are special.
I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft-balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true.
I do agree that the "media" and "common sense" assumptions give more legitimacy to seemingly crazy ideas or counter-ideas. But simply dismissing all opposing viewpoints because they don't fit your scientific model is insane.
I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact.
Also, he's a great example of why average people dislike academics. Just being smarter is not enough to convince people. You actually need to listen to them, and learn to communicate with them in order for them to trust you. And isn't that what Simon wants?
"I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact."
Just out of curiosity (really!), are you older than him / have a degree in history?
I actually agree with most of what you said, it just seems odd to assume he is wrong because he does't have some prerequisites, not just that he might disagree with you (and possibly be right).
Also, I think Simon Singh is actually a pretty good communicator. He's written several books, for laypeople, which talk about advanced science / mathematics. These have been pretty popular, so I think he's actually a counter-example to most scientists who don't do more. I think the article just gives the wrong impression.
Simon might be a shining example of the un-scientist (smart but able to talk to real people) but the article didn't portray him this way. My comment about history and wisdom was based on my own experiences as I get older. When someone is young and smart, they tend to debate with such passion it blinds them from listening to the opposing viewpoint and working to a resolution. Scientists need to learn to communicate and convert the non-believes (bad word I know) without falling back on "I'm smarter and hold more degrees so I must be right". Lay the evidence on the table, hold a debate, and listen. The most important being the listen part. Sure you can dismiss the ignorant, but not in a society where the ignorant make decisions that effect all of us. I'm rambling now ... off to the next reply.
True. No scientist should feel he can just wave his degree without presenting evidence. However I think you overlook just how much distrust there is of scientists.
A scientist doesn't start on equal footing with the "guru". People (who like anti-science) are always suspecting scientist to be talking some random bullshit with big words to confuse them, or can come up with conspiracy theories to shoot them down. Scientist can go on TV and show all the pretty pictures of graphs showing their argument, but it takes a guy with no clue to say: "Oh, but you forgot X" or "That graph is deceiving because..." and suddenly the scientist is playing defensively again.
And when a scientist dare stop playing the game then if he just stop replying he is accused of being in an ivory tower and being arrogant, and if he start attacking the other theory then he is accused of having created his own religion/faith because "that's not the evidence-based arguments that a scientist should do". It's a lose-lose.
I am not saying there is no way out, just that for a scientist to drive his message home takes a LOT more than just showing he has some evidence.
Hindsight is great. However the real question, is what could you have done in that time to attain a better epistemic position than the scientific consensus, and if you apply that algorithm today, what will it give you as responses.
In other words, if trusting scientists is a historically unreliable method, what's your less unreliable alternative?
Oh I don't know ...questioning their conclusions? Participating in a healthy debate? The impression (which may be wrong) was that Simon was advocating trust just because a scientist may hold a degree or may have joined with other scientists in agreement.
"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true."
I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority.
You may be right (I know little of Simon) but the average person doesn't see the experiment, or peer review. They just see the authority.
Just like our ideal legal system, to prove someone guilty it has to be done beyond a level of reasonable doubt. Science should be scrutinized in a similar manor.
Often I feel scientists are disproportionately hurt when someone attacks their conclusions. They need to get over their own emotional shortcomings and find a solution to the problem. Much like people need to get beyond "common sense" and reason with the facts.
I don't think scientist are so much hurt as lost: when you have years of evidence pointing in one direction, and someone replies with a completely unscientific argument (take a lot of pseudo-science for example) what is he supposed to do?
Science has its own epistemological methods. You don't prove something beyond a level of reasonable doubt because that's a) vague, b) really difficult (rarely science proves anything), c) the scientist never claims that his theory cannot be improved, i.e. it's perfect/finished.
On the other hand scientific agreement comes when a theory explains current data and can predict many new situations, and these were tested not just by the author but also by other people in other places with other apparatus. Every article is also checked for the assumptions and methodology that are stated in each paper. The scientific method cannot prove anything but has its own ways of knowing things...
... which is why it is so hard to give a scientific answer against some wacko unscientific theory.
The fact that the person doesn't see experiments or peer reviews is no excuse: that is the way science proceed, and it's open to anyone to scrutinise. You seem to suggest that scientist shouldn't just scrutinise each other's work but also answer any complain/criticism from someone who has no clue about the field. But you know, there's a reason the scientist spent 4 years of Uni and maybe more later: how can society know "beyond a level of reasonable doubt" what the scientist have agreed upon if they don't have the tools to understand it?
"I don't think scientist are so much hurt as lost: when you have years of evidence pointing in one direction, and someone replies with a completely unscientific argument (take a lot of pseudo-science for example) what is he supposed to do?"
My suggestion as to what the scientist is supposed to do when encountering a completely unscientific argument is below. Please note, I am not trying to respond to any of the other aspects or questions you asked -- this "simple" response became way too long as it is :-)
PREPARE AHEAD OF TIME:
A. Learn to communicate. A lot of life is dealing with miscommunication. It seems scientists as a group have the same issue with miscommunication that software developers generally have. This is very important where the science is critical for impacting public policy decisions. Especially, learn to listen, so that the metaphors and analogies that are guiding the incorrect thinking can be ascertained.
B. Expect that as soon as you are using science to advocate for public policy changes scientists will have opposition. Actually, the science part isn't the prereq, it is the "advocate for public policy changes". Lots of groups who advocate for public policy changes get villianized. It sucks, but it should not come as surprise to anyone who enters into that arena. If you (generic) want to be left alone, keep your head low. If you (generic) want to stand up for something -- you will be opposed.
REACT:
C. Educate. In my opinion, the scientist is supposed to educate people in a simple a terms as possible. I believe scientists used to view this as part of their duty and I believe it has been something that has been generally lost (fwiw I have a 3 volume set of articles that great scientists such as Einstein and Bohr wrote for lay people that span over two centuries... often the articles were published in newspapers.. I have loaned it out, otherwise, I'd list the set for those interested). To educate the lay people, write articles for news papers or online venues. Engage critics with openness, because in doing so professionalism is shown and confidence is built up.
D. Be respectful. Don't refer to people who disagree as deniers or anti-science or ignorant. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Figure out the faulty metaphors they are employing and reveal them. At the worst, agree to disagree. I have recently encountered a scientist doing exactly this, and have been very impressed with him (and I expect I disagree with him on some fundamental beliefs), but I have contacted him to encourage him in what he is doing, and even sought his feedback on some of my own interests.. because I can trust him to be methodical AND respectful. Respect opens up the possibility for long term dialogue. Also, keep in mind that your audience isn't only the person asking questions or postulating absurd theories. It includes the people who are undecided watching the debate (or reading the news article, etc..) as well as the minority / subset of the opposing view who are willing to listen.
FOLLOW UP:
E. Make a point of gathering objections, alternative theories etc, and having the data that refutes them readily and publicly available. This is just a tactical confidence building move.
SUMMARY:
Please note, I'm not encouraging necessarily that a single person do all these things. Happily scientists do not work alone, are part of associations, etc.. and collectively they can do these steps and maintain/gain/improve a good footing with the public. And doing so in a respectful way will gain more good will (even from people who disagree) than you might imagine.
Yes, I mostly agree with all you said. But the crucial bit is the last paragraph: it is not a scientist job to do these things. If society required them then it would be useful that Universities and other organisations gave (say) 10-20% free time to the scientist to reply to inquires in the newspapers (or online).
At the moment I see all around me at University people who are working like crazy to write some paper or meet some deadline. These are the metric on which the scientist is judged, and most of all how he/she can preserve his job. Scientist risk being fired like everyone else (well, at least young scientist).
So society has tried to fill this gap with new jobs: the scientific journalist and the writer of popular science books. They are those doing the job you describe. And there is one added advantage. Many scientist can find it difficult to explain things to the layman for the simple reason that they don't quite understand the knowledge gap between them. I've met many good scientist who were terrible lecturers and that is to a classroom full of wanna-be scientist who go good grades and passed exams.
So yes, scientist should be taught at uni how to talk to non-scientist effectively. But I think it's even better to have someone else, who knows the general topic, reads the papers, and writes a big summary in it for the laymen. They can probably do a much better job.
But as this article showed you still get flak, and a lot of it. And not just flak: you may be taken to court! And sometimes this may happen even if you keep your head low, simply because your paper is starting to get good reputation and so other scientist may use it as an argument in their discussions.
One last word: it's kind of tough when you know the topic well and someone who clearly has no idea gives you an argument on why you are wrong. If you give them the benefit of the doubt then they achieved their aim of muddying the water. If you take up the challenge and try to show why he is wrong, you get attacked for using complicated language or concepts that the laymen cannot understand, or simply branded as a stubborn zealot. And metaphors can only take you that far: a lot of the difficult science is completely against common sense so metaphors don't help much.
A couple of times I had to discuss with people about probability. Their argument was the usual fallacy that if you get---say---10 heads in a row then it's more likely to get a tail. They will mention things like "you need to get 50/50 in the long run" or they will make distinctions between short runs and long (statistical) runs. And no matter how much I tried, I couldn't show they were wrong. If I tried to talk of absolute deviations and relative deviation then I would already lose them. And ironically Math is not science: a scientific theory is never 100% right, but proved mathematical theories are (as long as you start from the right axioms). And yet there was no way.
I think you underestimate how easy it is to come up with random explanations or muddy the waters when you are not uphold to the same standards than the scientist.
P.S. That said I personally don't think it's a scientist job to decide about policy changes. I mean, I'd love it if an expert did so, but what society wants is decided by society. Scientist are there to provide the info, not to decide how to use the knowledge.
From the interview: Don’t come up with a view, find everybody who agrees with it, and then say, “Look at this, I must be right.” Start off by saying, “Who do I trust?” On global warming, for example, I happen to trust climate experts, world academies of science, Nobel laureates, and certain science journalists. You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.
It sounds like he is advocating a trust system based on titles, organization membership, etc. How is this different from trusting them based on authority?
What's wrong with that? I mean it's not like you get a noble prize by winning the lottery! You take random wacko on TV and noble laureate, each tells you their theory, and you (so far) don't know anything else. Who do you trust? Why?
I think the title _does_ mean something: it was neither bestowed upon him randomly nor inherited by blood.
Let me ask you another question: who do you think runs faster, a random guy I pick you see in the street, or a guy who won an olympic medal in athletic? Most people somehow feel winning an olympic medal is all about merit, but getting a Noble isn't!!!
Chill out. There is nothing in my comment to imply that there is anything wrong with title, or authority, or pink ponies. The author of the proceeding comment wrote "Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority." The purpose of my comment is to say that the words attributed to Singh indicate trust based on authority indicated by title, membership, etc.
No worries: I wasn't angry or shouting. Sorry for coming too strongly. :)
I understand what you are saying, but my point is that those two are in science a lot closer than you seem to suggest. Titles (such as a noble prize) are won thanks to reputation gained from those experiments and peer reviews. If your karma system is based on what you published and that is subjected to peer review and scientific methodology, then your reputation (i.e. your karma) are a good hint that the person knows what they are talking about.
In other words:
trust scientist --> high authority --> gained by good experiments and subjected to peer review
I agree that that sentence could give that impression but I think it's a little out of context. If you read Simon Singh's stuff (particularly Trick or Treatment, the book which lead to the article which lead to the libel case) it's really not what he advocates - he advocates having a robust evidence base for what you're saying.
I think what he was trying to say in the sentence you quote is "I believe the overwhelming majority of the people who have looked at this subject, have a history of backing up their claims with robust, tested, reviewed evidence and are doing so in this instance".
It's a good way to filter out the crazy crackpot opinions, not to say these aren't of any value but when you don't have time to be an expert in a field you are much better off trusting those that have had their viewpoints put through rigorous peer review over those who haven't.
The titles, organization membership, scientific prizes are of course a kind of authority, but they are not assigned based on authority alone. It is a whole system built upon peer review, reproducible experiments, verifiable hypotheses and so on.
Authority can be useful. I know, it’s usually scoffed at because there is a fallacy named after it. Yet there is no conceivable way in which you can be an expert in all the big fields and little niches of science. You have to use the authority shortcut. You have to find people who you can trust and let them figure it out for you. That’s just a reality of the human condition.
All Singh says is that you should trust people who deal with the topic at hand every day of their life and who use the scientific method. I’m not really sure who else you should trust when you want answers to your questions. The scientific method is certainly not perfect but do you know of any better alternative? I don’t.
I couldn't agree more about your statement regarding authority. But oppose the behavior of trusting only those who "deal" with a subject every day. History shows many medical and scientific advances were made by smart people working outside their field.
If you are not an expert there is no reliable way for you to tell whether someone outside the field is a genius or a crank. Both is possible (though I would argue that the cranks vastly outnumber the geniuses) but if even the experts inside the field are unable to tell the difference there is no chance in hell you can. That’s the big problem.
I doesn’t really help you that scientific discoveries are from time to time made by people outside the respective fields, if you are not an expert you have no way to discern the good stuff from the bad stuff.
I find it's this kind of answers that make scientific explanations so hard.
"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true."
First of all: if they have an advanced degree in a subject such as medicine than I think they deserve that you drop your hidden insinuations in the adjective "perceived". They studied the topic, they did at least 7 years and maybe more. Other things being equal, isn't that something that matter? Or put it another way: if random "guru" tells me one thing and a scientist the other, I'll probably lean more toward what the scientist said, though I won't feel I am in a position to be sure he is right (but if I had to bet, I'd say he is more likely to be).
Second annoying word was your adverb "blindly". There is nothing blind in following the scientific consensus. The consensus in science is not formed by a group of guys rolling dices. A good scientist is a sceptic, and if many scientist agree that (say) we evolved from monkeys then I think they have a pretty good argument. They are not saying: "trust us because we are the wise men", they say: "trust us because we've done experiments and so far this is our best theory... if you can disprove it, then try".
Third the large number of historical cases you refer to... large numbers? Seriously? Give me a percentage: what are we talking about? 5%? 1%? 0.01%? Sure, science has its up and downs, and sure there are Kuhnian paradigm shifts from time to time. Boltzmann found strong opposition, as did other famous scientist: but those are the exception, not the rule. Just because these exceptions are so rare that they end up known by everyone, doesn't mean that they are in any "large number" what so ever. Again, give me a percentage.
Finally scientist do NOT dismiss all opposing viewpoints because they don't fit a model. Sure, a model that goes completely against 200 years of science will find opposition, but for good reason: that theory had proved itself for so long after all! At the same time when a scientist proves something people seem they can immediately come up with a random objection... which of course the scientist had already accounted for (and then some).
There are a few exceptions. I think most scientist will dismiss anyone who says they built a perpetual machine... but thank God they do. I don't want to think how much scientist time has been lost on a random guy coming up with a wacky model: scientist are not there to prove _your_ theories. If you want you try and prove it yourself! If you do and you can back up your assertions with data, scientist will listen.
One last point. No, being smarter is not enough, but it should mean something. I mean, just look at evolution: scientist may spend a few years to properly show and back up their assertions against one random opposition, and it takes like 1 day for the opposition to slightly modify their model to take into account that. That's not how you do science, and if you feel every scientist has to listen to anyone coming up with any theory and try to spend maybe several hours explaining where it is wrong, and maybe filling up all the holes in their knowledge, then I think you are deeply mistaken. You want that? Then pay for someone to do it: to be a scientist is a job!
Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly trust X's assertions.
The other way for the layperson to judge specialists is to learn enough about their field in order to evaluate their predictions. Granted, this involves much, much more effort than lazily following the reputation talk. But it also makes it much safer to trust the people involved, and to maybe stop trusting them if they go astray at some point.
To bring forth examples, evolution is quite easy to verify after reading a bit of biology. For example, DNA analysis comes in a full century after the "Origin of Species" and shows us how amazingly related all living things are, deep within; thus giving precise shapes to the "trees of life" that Darwin first sketched in his notebooks. And there are many, many other predictions of the theory of evolution that can be easily checked by the unprejudiced amateur. You'll rarely find articles that say "Dawkins believes in evolution, and Dawkins is a great scientist, therefore evolution is true".
On the other hand, things like climate science seem (to me at least) to rely much more on the argument from authority for gaining lay support. If some prominent climate scientist had predicted in the 90's that "average temperature in the 2000-2010 decade, as indicated by methodology X, will be 1.4 plus or minus 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than in the 1990s", I would have a much easier time trusting his or her claims now. But things seem to be moving in the opposite direction with this field, e.g. as witnessed by the very replacement of "global warming" (somewhat verifiable) with "climate change" (unfalsifiable), and the popular attribution of all kinds of meteorological phenomena to this cause, in the same non-comprehending way that, not so long ago, they were ascribed to the god of thunder.