Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

[christopher3393]

Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk.

 

The “analytic system” uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control.

 

The “experiential system” is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water.

 

Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations.

 

Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed “doses of feeling” into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too “coldly rational”?

 

Abstract from article linked in post #71.

 

Article includes interesting reference to neurologist Anthony Damasio's Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Error-Emotion-Reason-Human/dp/014303622X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425323150&sr=1-2&keywords=Damasio

[Hiro]

So, you are advocating a government based upon a scientific theocracy?

 

A scientific theocracy is an oxymoron like religious education.

[Hiro]

Because so much 'science' has become simply political rhetoric...or religion

 

Any examples?

 

Have Germ Theory of Disease, Theory of Evolution, General Theory of Relativity, Geology, Embryology etc become politicized recently?

 

Scientists no longer use the scientific method, but instead rely on rhetorical arguments when they submit papers to peer-reviewed science journals like Science, Nature, etc?

[christopher3393]

A scientific theocracy is an oxymoron like religious education.

 

Hmmm...let's see...I have a Phd in religious education.

[Hiro]

Hmmm...let's see...I have a Phd in religious education.

 

Quranic science?

[Jud]

Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed “doses of feeling” into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too “coldly rational”?

 

To give one very clear example of this, affirmed by both Bill Maher and my wife: Both neglected to get the flu vaccine. Both said if there were an Ebola vaccine they'd be fighting to be first in line. The flu kills 10,000 people in the USA annually. Ebola has within the last 6-12 months killed how many people in the USA? So the perception of the relative risks is completely out of proportion to their actual probabilities.

[tne]

Any examples?

 

Have Germ Theory of Disease, Theory of Evolution, General Theory of Relativity, Geology, Embryology etc become politicized recently?

 

Scientists no longer use the scientific method, but instead rely on rhetorical arguments when they submit papers to peer-reviewed science journals like Science, Nature, etc?

 

 

For the theory of evolution, absolutely this has been politicized.

 

Also your statement that "scientists no longer use the scientific method" is quite puzzling and incorrect.

What do you base this statement on? My colleagues and I who spend many hours in the lab would strongly disagree with this.

 

It is important to distinguish the body of knowledge that we call "science" (which may have inconsistencies and is incomplete) from the scientific method. The latter should inform the former, ideally, and is itself a very philosophically interesting topic.

 

Another interesting topic is the difficulty in experimental repeatability. See for example -

PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

 

 

 

 

Also I am baffled by Paul's "scientific theocracy" comment to Jud. I do not believe that he was suggesting anything other than making decisions based on scientific values and results, as opposed to politics, polls, or religion. But even so, I would prefer a "scientific theocracy" (whatever the f#&k that means), to one based on faith and superstition.

[Hiro]

For the theory of evolution, absolutely this has been politicized.

 

In what way? Do you see the influence of politics on the quality of research in this field?

 

 

Also your statement that "scientists no longer use the scientific method" is quite puzzling and incorrect.

What do you base this statement on? My colleagues and I who spend many hours in the lab would strongly disagree with this.

 

That actually wasn't a statement but a question challenging the ridiculous assertion put forward by James1776.

[tne]

Ah. I see your trailing question mark now. Apologies and I should have known, based on your other posts that I have read.

 

In what way? Do you see the influence of politics on the quality of research in this field?

 

 

 

 

That actually wasn't a statement but a question challenging the ridiculous assertion put forward by James1776.

[firedog]

The Theory of Evolution hasn't been politicized, the discussion of it in society has been.

[Hiro]

Ah. I see your trailing question mark now. Apologies and I should have known, based on your other posts that I have read.

 

No problem, Tne.

 

There have been so many anti-science comments made in this thread, it was very easy to misconstrue a new one, as being one of them.

[tne]

The Theory of Evolution hasn't been politicized, the discussion of it in society has been.

 

 

I am not sure that I understand what distinction that you are trying to make here. My reply to a statement in Hiro's post was to reflect that topics, such as the TofE, have been used in a politically- and religion-charged context, and some individuals question the overwelming evidence due to their pre-existing political or religious beliefs.

[Hiro]

The Theory of Evolution hasn't been politicized, the discussion of it in society has been.

 

And that is an important distinction. Scientific findings can certainly be inconvenient for some political or religious groups, but that doesn't mean that these outside unscientific forces somehow upend the findings themselves.

[Paul R]

A scientific theocracy is an oxymoron like religious education.

 

That shows how little political science, and possibly history, you have studied. And with such a certain opinion too! (grin)

 

-Paul

[Hiro]

That shows how little political science, and possibly history, you have studied. And with such a certain opinion too! (grin)

 

-Paul

 

Please elaborate then, Paul, what you mean by using a word "theocracy" in conjunction with science. Theocracy is defined as "a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god."

 

Could the word you were looking for have been meritocracy?

[Allan F]

That's true; it's only the job of governments that wish to base decisions on science.

 

+1

 

It certainly doesn't apply to the government of Stephen Harper in Canada, which prefers to muzzle scientists.

[Paul R]

In what way? Do you see the influence of politics on the quality of research in this field?

 

That actually wasn't a statement but a question challenging the ridiculous assertion put forward by James1776.

 

Oh for heavens sake, do you know how many politicians are elected based at least partly upon there publicly stated opinion on this subject? Or how much money goes into the subject? Or how historically it has driven political opinion?

 

Of course it is politicized. Highly politicized.

[Paul R]

Please elaborate then, Paul, what you mean by using a word "theocracy" in conjunction with science. Theocracy is defined as "a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god."

 

Could the word you were looking for have been meritocracy?

 

Nope - theocracy would be accurate. Good scientists are generally not good governors, and good governors are not generally good scientists. A belief that being a scientist makes one automatically a good choice to comment on or guide public policy is simply mysticism in another form.

 

-Paul

 

Oh dear - it is probably about time for the unicorns to show up in this thread.

[Hiro]

Oh for heavens sake, do you know how many politicians are elected based at least partly upon there publicly stated opinion on this subject?

 

You don't understand. Just because someone was elected because he or she happens to deny evolution, it doesn't mean the body of knowledge accumulated by evolutionary scientists has changed.

[Hiro]

Nope - theocracy would be accurate. Good scientists are generally not good governors, and good governors are not generally good scientists. A belief that being a scientist makes one automatically a good choice to comment on or guide public policy is simply mysticism in another form.

 

If someone wants to decide on matters concerning environment, public health, public education, research & development etc that person should be guided by deep knowledge of these areas, not mysticism.

 

You wouldn't want someone who doesn't have a very good grasp of audio engineering to design your DAC, right?

 

So why would you want, for example, someone who has no idea about ecology and environment to chair an environment committee?

[Paul R]

You don't understand. Just because someone was elected because he or she happens to deny evolution, it doesn't mean the body of knowledge accumulated by evolutionary scientists has changed.

 

With respect, I do not think you understand. The real physical objective universe does not change depending upon what people think, believe, or just want to happen really really hard.

 

The actions that people take are based upon inputs from science, religion, and a whole bunch of other special interests. Managing those interests to come out with the best solution for the most people is what a government is supposed to do. Scientists are quite well known for being self centered and willing to put onerous restrictions on everyone else to achieve their aims. Just ask an archaeologist.

[Paul R]

If someone wants to decide on matters concerning environment, public health, public education, research & development etc that person should be guided by deep knowledge of these areas, not mysticism.

 

You wouldn't want someone who doesn't have a very good grasp of audio engineering to design your DAC, right?

 

So why would you want, for example, someone who has no idea about ecology and environment to chair an environment committee?

 

Let me turn that around, why would I want someone who doesn't know how to govern setting up public policy, rules, and restrictions - all backed by the full force of the federal government?

 

Try this for example - what good would it do to "save the environment" (which, by the way, does not need saving in the first place...) if in the process the economy gets wrecked bad enough to send us into another worldwide depression like the 1930s? You want an ecologist deciding what to do?

 

Now, if you change "guiding" to "advising", well, I am closer to agreeing with you.

 

-Paul

[Hiro]

The real physical objective universe does not change depending upon what people think, believe, or just want to happen really really hard.

 

I'm glad you realize this. And I don't need to mention that I concur 100%.

 

The actions that people take are based upon inputs from science, religion, and a whole bunch of other special interests.

 

What does religion have to say about, for example, environment? I really would like to know.

[Audio_ELF]

Let me turn that around, why would I want someone who doesn't know how to govern setting up public policy, rules, and restrictions - all backed by the full force of the federal government?

 

Try this for example - what good would it do to "save the environment" (which, by the way, does not need saving in the first place...) if in the process the economy gets wrecked bad enough to send us into another worldwide depression like the 1930s? You want an ecologist deciding what to do?

Paul, is not your example proving that there is very little political influence in the scientific community?

 

Without turning this into a "is climate change real" debate, the prevailing opinion amongst scientists would be that it does exist and is caused by humans. If the scientists were influenced so much by politics and political expediency, would not concerns over "wrecking the economy" override that opinion much more?

 

Oh and policy decisions should be made on the basis of expert opinions not what flies well in the headlines...

[sandyk]

If the scientists were influenced so much by politics and political expediency, would not concerns over "wrecking the economy" override that opinion much more?

Eloise

That's exactly what the Australian Federal Government led by U.K. born Tony Abbott is doing to Australia.

He disbands , or attempts to disband, any advisory Scientific board who dares to disagree with his Government's stand on this. He was even pissed off by a speech Obama made on climate change when in Australia recently.

Alex