Problem with science today and the war on reason

[Rive]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Can you give some specific examples of what you are describing?

Well, let's see an example.

Under 'Biology' here Drakkith has an excellent advice in a locked thread about how one should start invest (learn) in healthy food. Since I've alredady chew through that path once I know how much investment it means (a lot of time).

With eating whatever you want, taking a pill of supplement and some kind of medical insurance you are within five years of lifespan to that without any investment at all.

Applied science is an excellent tool to remove risks related to missing knowledge from life.

Ps.: it's the same for vaccination too. Maybe that's an even better example.

 

[jack action]

Society is way too complicated for physicists to be telling us how to run it.

I don't mind having someone (physicist or other) to share his/her knowledge such that I can make an informed decision. I actually want to know. Where the problem is when someone wants to impose his/her view on me because he/she thinks it is equal or superior to any opinion I may have.

And this why I stated this is not a war on reason (the topic of this thread). Everybody is able to reason (not only scientists). And when you undermine this ability from someone by the following logic:

1. «If you knew what I knew, you necessarily came to the same conclusions I did»;
2. «If you came to the same conclusions I did, then you would act the same way I do»;
3. «Therefore, I shall make all the decisions for you».

It will necessarily lead to people disavowing your reasoning or people completely abandoning themselves to your judgment. In the first case, they will reject everything you used to prove your points (i.e. science) because they don't agree and anything they say don't matter. In the second case, they will not care about how you came to your conclusions, since they know they will follow anyway; So, why bother learning the process?

In all cases, people won't care about science. No matter how you explain it to them.

It is extremely important that people have the freedom to choose - You must see it both as a right and responsibility - if you want them to embrace the decision process.

 

[PeterDonis]

It is extremely important that people have the freedom to choose - You must see it both as a right and responsibility - if you want them to embrace the decision process.

While this might be true, it's probably off topic for this thread.

 

[Dale]

But I see society's disengagement with science somewhat more as a symptom of other social problems than being a core problem in and of itself.

This is a good point. The public has become distrustful of institutions in general. Police, religion, marriage, finance, and other major institutions have all suffered a decline in public trust.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-trust-their-institutions-anymore/

It could be that science has actually suffered less decline in trust than other institutions.

 

[PeterDonis]

Police, religion, marriage, finance, and other major institutions have all suffered a decline in public trust.

Looking at the graph in that article, I see the average has gone down some in the last 20 years or so, but the data on individual institutions seems more of a mixed bag: confidence in the police seems to have declined very little, and confidence in the military seems to have gone up, while confidence in Congress has gone down significantly.

Also, 20 years is a very short time window. Unfortunately there probably isn't reliable data on much longer time scales.

 

[Dale]

the data on individual institutions seems more of a mixed bag

Yes, that is certainly true. There is a lot of variatiation.

confidence in the military seems to have gone up,

This one surprised me since the time period covered includes before the Iraq war.

Also, 20 years is a very short time window.

I disagree that this is short. It is time for a new generation to grow up.

 

[PeterDonis]

This one surprised me since the time period covered includes before the Iraq war.

I think this is evidence for the claim, which I've seen made a number of times, that unlike in the Vietnam War, the American people generally now draw a distinction between supporting the troops and supporting the war; they are ok with the former even if they are not ok with the latter.

I disagree that this is short. It is time for a new generation to grow up.

I don't mean short compared to the time scale for social change. I mean short compared to the time scale over which American society has existed. In this graph we are only seeing a narrow window of the evolution of our society; that means we have to be sure to keep what we are seeing in perspective. It looks significant in the 20-year window we are seeing; but what if we compared this data with similar data (which AFAIK does not exist) for, say, 1955-1975?

 

[Dale]

we have to be sure to keep what we are seeing in perspective.

Good point. Perhaps other generations have faced the same. I wonder what happened for the next generation.

 

[KASCII]

I think this is evidence for the claim, which I've seen made a number of times, that unlike in the Vietnam War, the American people generally now draw a distinction between supporting the troops and supporting the war; they are ok with the former even if they are not ok with the latter.

I agree with your point, but I'd add that the Vietnam War didn't have a hunt for Bin Laden and was seen more as a pointless war, and the unfortunate "baby killers" perception of the troops. However, there are a lot of things that influence a society's attitude toward things, such as the interest in science. I'm always struck by contemporary perceptions of the decade of the 1970's with some nostalgia for a "70's culture". I lived my adolescence in the 1970's and I found it to be a period cynicism and conflict.

Good point. Perhaps other generations have faced the same. I wonder what happened for the next generation.

During the decade of the 70's there was a declining in interest in space exploration with Apollo program, but later on there was also a resurgence of interest with the developing shuttle program. I think that society is certainly interested in achievements (moon landing) as much as in a shared interest for achieve something (space shuttle program). The problem is maintaining their interest in achieving that something.

 

[RogueOne]

The only "Science" that I see people questioning are the conclusions that first came from politicians, were spread by mainstream media (that nobody trusts in the first place), and then were supported by contradicting reports and models that have not ever been proven to be predictive to a coefficient of determination.

The only "Science" that I question is that which misses a factor that I believe could be important, or any overwhelming "Scientific consensus" on an idea that diverges too far from this process

 

[Bandersnatch]

The only "Science" that I see people questioning are the conclusions that first came from politicians, were spread by mainstream media (that nobody trusts in the first place), and then were supported by contradicting reports and models that have not ever been proven to be predictive to a coefficient of determination.

How does that fit vaccinations, evolution, global warming, carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoking, geological age of Earth, big bang theory, harmlessness of cellphone emissions, (and going into even more out-there doubters) Earth not being flat or the origin of 'chemtrails'?

 

[Bystander]

carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoking,

Just suggestions.

 

[gleem]

This is a good point. The public has become distrustful of institutions in general. Police, religion, marriage, finance, and other major institutions have all suffered a decline in public trust.

But perhaps it is a resurgence of a prior time when there was much political and social unrest. Does anybody remember the statement "Don't trust anybody over 30" Jack Weinberg (math major Berkley) 1964. Even though this comment was not meant for any specific person or group it came to apply to the establishment. During the Vietnam War there was much debate about its validity and thus skepticism and mistrust of information put out by the government about the war followed by Kent State, Nixon and Watergate. A lot of credibility was lost. One would think that those ( the parents of genX) growing up during these times would have reason to instill in their children a suspicion for authority. With the relatively quiet times of the eighty and early nineties the cynicism remained dormant. Then the Clinton scandal, the Iraq war, the Great Recession awoke and fomented the current acrimony against the governing bodies that be. As justifiable as the outrage might be there most likely has strong elements of irrationality Science while not necessarily a focus of this outrage may be considered an accomplice of government policies.

 

[UsableThought]

Science while not necessarily a focus of this outrage may be considered an accomplice of government policies.

Yes, and in extreme cases this motif can feature in conspiracy thinking. E.g. folks who thought AIDS was a deliberately released disease; those who (reportedly) think that climate change is a deliberate hoax; that 911 didn't happen (thus all the investigations using science etc. were "fake"); ditto "faked moon landings"; etc. etc.

Now & again I revisit the Wikipedia article on "conspiracy theory", just to remind myself of how these things work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is a derogatory one.

Note that "without warrant" here means there is no underlying logical hypothesis to connect the claim of a conspiracy to supposed evidence of same.

It makes sense that if you want an easy way to hatch a conspiracy theory, just center it on powerful institutions ("government or other powerful actors" in the above quote) that have lots of technology at their disposal - including lots of egg-headed, crazy, sinister "scientists": NASA, CDC, OSHA, any of the armed forces, etc. etc.; and of course the favorite whipping boy of The X-Files, FEMA (secret prison camps for various Democratic administrations, etc.) Just add water, and hey presto!

I would laugh about such nonsensical behavior except it exists, is fairly widespread, and not at all funny when encountered firsthand. For example someone I know actually believes in the most recent wave of FEMA-related conspiracy theories; his source was "the Internet" plus right-wing talk radio. He's a nice guy in other respects, very friendly; has excellent high-level mechanical skills that relate to his profession (which I will not disclose here as an extra measure of protecting his privacy); but he's not literate or well-educated & obviously was never trained in critical thinking. So I would say conspiracy theories of the above sort, whether science-related or not, are a real threat to democracy when encouraged by irresponsible members of the fringe media.

 

[UsableThought]

I know this thread is getting pretty diffuse, but I was just-reading through it with some interest; and would like to make just a couple of additional points before letting go for now.

First, I think we have to avoid conflating too much or attributing motives too monolithically; case by case is better than monolithic claims, and even for a single issue, conflation or attribution of monolithic thinking is risky. Take GMOs, for example:

For example, efforts to label GMOs are based on bad "science."

I've often heard this assertion; and there is some truth to it, in that most folks (including me) who oppose GMOs aren't scientists & often haven't read very much about the technology, certainly not in detail. However there are many reasons for wanting labeling of foods for GMO content; mine happens to be a concern with companies such as Monsanto that, from the reading that I have done (which isn't as much as I could do, but a lot more than many do), their pursuit of profit is resulting in bad public health decisions about pesticides; this interfaces with GMO technology pretty heavily. There are lots of nuances & possible ways to go; but Monsanto is not who should be in charge of these decisions via powerful lobbying. Europe has gone a different direction & appears to be doing just as well as us - if I can I'll hunt up some articles on this. But just for starters on the GMO crops/Roundup issue, see this: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/

And also read this about Big Ag and food security - this is just one article, but the concerns it mentions are widespread among independent scholars & quite well-documented: https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...h-for-mega-mergers-puts-food-security-at-risk

So sometimes opposition to a particular policy that tangentially involves a technology or a science (e.g. whether to label GMO foods as such) has to do with issues that aren't just about the technology, but about an entire industry - in this case an industry (Big Ag) that is very important but also notorious for pursuing profit & trying to crush competition at the expense of food security & public health.

How long before we have fMRI "lie detectors"? fMRI's can tell you one thing, blood oxygen levels in various parts of the brain, but there is all sorts of nonsense out there that extrapolates this to mean something it can never actually tell you.

This is one I wholeheartedly agree with. As it happens, I am friendly with a fairly large number of researchers & clinicians in the field of evidence-based psychology, mostly to do with what is sometimes called the "third wave" of behavioral models & therapies, and pretty much everyone is appalled at the abuse of fMRI modeling. Some years ago Ed Vul made noise with his "Voodoo correlations" paper, which I read - I can't say I get all the math by any means, but the implications were clear. And there are even worse problems with many of the MRI-based studies, e.g. very often the psychological "model" that is attached to the study is crude & has not been justified in the slightest. So even without the problems with the statistical modeling, in the worst case scenario you end up with a very expensive machine doing little more than confirming self-reporting by study subjects, all based on a psychological model that isn't itself scientific.

Yet these studies are apparently very alluring to many otherwise educated laypersons; in part because of the way mainstream pop-sci reporting pumps them up without asking questions. I especially dislike the science section of the New York TImes in this regard. It would be interesting (but very time-consuming) to examine in detail how the NYT science section goes about deciding what stories to pursue, and very interesting to try & find out their technical review process once a story has been drafted; such an enquiry would have to be done in a non-hostile manner via interviews with their staff, but it would not be easy.

 

[_PJ_]

I think most people here have a genetally 'good' sense for factt--chexking and seeking teliable answers from reputable sources, due to the fact they ate obviously willing and intetested in coming to a dedicated science forum for answers or- even those that are confused due to misleading or misinterpretations from other sources, are at least seeking to clarify etc.

In adfotion to the excellent points raised by PeterDonis with which I am whpolly in agreement, I offer these observations:

The rise of markwting and consumerist motivarion " polluting" science - its not new, but in modern social media echo chambers of confirmation bias, it or its influence has increased consideravvly. Even if there were actual scientific premise, the reputation and name is besmirched.
Actual PhD with actual (maybe not well statistically analysed nor care for null hypotheses or attenpts to account for errors nor real establishing fair systems) results are concluding outlandish claims to meet a funded agenda - rarher than impartially investigating to discovet a natural truth.
This may be considered 'bad science', but where is the distinction for the layman?

There is less difference between an actor in a lab coat (fuelling only the naive assumption thhey have any scientific qualification) describing the fanciful property of toothpaste or hair shampoo - and the likes of Stephwn Hawking.

There ARE scientific journalists, whom have a science background and mostly ought to be able to comprehend the accuracy, implication and reliability of a topic - typically, they are still writing:
a) for a lay readership
b) Under a biased editorship or sponsor ideology
c) With pressure to provide sensation or similarly less mundane pieces with a regular frequency.

Big scientific Earth shattering revelations as confirmed and applicable to change mankinds perspective or quality of life simply do not occur in timeframes of media periodicity. I'm not in favour nor justifyig such, only providing the point.

-

My final point is that the nature(pun coincident) of scientific discoveries (in Physics) are largely far removed from layman everyday experience nowadays.
Of course, historically scientific discoveries as the purview of natural philosophers amid piqued interests of bored aristocracy were similarly removed but these were demonstrable and evident without necessarily a prior deep understanding of theory or a rigorous mathematical background to appreciate.
This makes it much more difficult to bridge the gap in communicating scienrific advances to laymen without necessarily introducing the potential for bad anaöogy or misinterpretation.

I do believe that when analogies or metaphirical descriptions ARE employed, the limitations and particular distinctions shoyld be made expressly clear at least.

 

[nitsuj]

My final point is that the nature(pun coincident) of scientific discoveries (in Physics) are largely far removed from layman everyday experience nowadays.

This...but I feel it also weakens the argument for more accurate reporting of "discoveries".

Yes, but at what cost? Unless we know what we're trading off to get lower fatality rates, we can't judge whether the lower fatality rates are actually worth the tradeoff. Of course many of the costs will be very hard to quantify; for example, what costs do speed limit laws impose by increasing the amount of time people have to spend traveling instead of doing productive work? But that doesn't mean we can just ignore them, which is what many of our preemptive laws, IMO, do--they pick an arbitrary point (e.g., 55 mph speed limits) and say that is where the optimal point is, without justifying that in terms of an actual cost vs. benefit analysis.

A quick wiki read on speed limits I found this.

"The speed limit is commonly set at or below the 85th percentile operating speed (being the speed which no more than 15% of traffic is exceeding)[45][46][47] and in the US is typically set 8 to 12 mph (13 to 19 km/h) below that speed.[48] Thus, if the 85th percentile operating speed as measured by a http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc627.htm exceeds the design speed, legal protection is given to motorists traveling at such speeds (design speed is "based on conservative assumptions about driver, vehicle and roadway characteristics").[49]...

The theory behind the 85th percentile rules is, that as a policy, most citizens should be deemed reasonable and prudent, and limits must be practical to enforce.[50][51] ... This rule in substance is a process for voting the speed limit by driving; and in contrast to delegating the speed limit to an engineering expert.[52][53]...

 

[nuuskur]

Facts are the reason science is losing the war on reason? What is meant by reason? I cannot gather from the article. Is it a reference to what we, by our "intuition", think would "make sense"?
How provoking. Facts are facts. If something is not true then it's not fact.

"You’d think scientists could answer simple questions!?? like ‘when did the dinosaurs live?’. But the truth about science is bad news for those seeking certainty"
Only logic can guarantee certainty and schools of thought like mathematics. It isn't, and for VERY obvious reasons CANNOT be, the purpose of science to make all claims with utmost certainty (i.e probability 1). If such a claim existed, then great.

Despite the reputation for being about facts, there are very few hard facts in nature or science’s understanding of it.
A hard fact? How is that any different from a fact? Or harder?

Conversely, does flagging up the limits of our knowledge, as happened with modelling and predicting climate change, undermine the confidence in the scientific method even with unprecedented consensus on whether or not climate change exists?
The exaggerated documentaries with "scientists" speaking about relevant phenomena are not accurate enough and therefore ambiguity sets in. The truth is more boring and more complicated. The scientifc method will not fail. It is your understanding or mis-understanding of the latter, that will come into consideration.

There is a difference between what is fact and what is conjecture. For the love of god...

But my outburst only serves to prove that $\exists x \neg P(x)$.

I read an interview with fresh_42 and he says:
"Once you really know statistics and logic, political talk-shows will become even harder to stand as they are anyhow."

Not exactly a political talk-show at this moment, but I feel you, brother, I feel you!

 

[PeterDonis]

A quick wiki read on speed limits I found this

Do you have a link?

On its face, what you quote seems circular: drivers, at least in my experience, regulate their speed based on what the posted speed limit is, so it doesn't make sense to determine the posted speed limit based on the observed speeds chosen by drivers.

I also find it interesting that the language quoted admits, implicitly, that drivers will exceed the posted speed limit and that there is no way to enforce those limits strictly.

 

[nitsuj]

Do you have a link?

On its face, what you quote seems circular: drivers, at least in my experience, regulate their speed based on what the posted speed limit is, so it doesn't make sense to determine the posted speed limit based on the observed speeds chosen by drivers.

I also find it interesting that the language quoted admits, implicitly, that drivers will exceed the posted speed limit and that there is no way to enforce those limits strictly.

on the wiki entry for speed limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit under maximum speed limits

 

[_PJ_]

i am so sorry for the awful typing errors throughout my earlier post. Unfortunately I am currently limited to accessing these forums via handheld device with unwieldy OSK