Problem with science today and the war on reason

[gleem]

Anyone advocating or opposing any policy when acting as a scientist and not just an ordinary citizen, is abusing science

Are you saying that if a policies for whatever reason are inappropriate with regards to the science that scientists should not speak out as scientists?

 

[Rive]

So what abuse for political purposes can you identify out side of the current administration's denial of CC.

Do you think that acceptance of CC is not used the similar way to achieve political/economical/whatever goals?

But it stands for genetics too. Or nuclear physics. Computer science. Chemistry. Astrophysics.

 

[PeterDonis]

There would probably be far fewer climate change objections if the climate change science were not being used politically to push through expensive policies. That is just a personal guess

My personal guess is actually the other way around: there would probably be very different climate change science if climate change science were not being used politically to push through certain policies. But either way, the fundamental problem is the same: science being done, not to figure out what model makes the best predictions, but to serve predetermined political ends.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm missing something. How expensive might it get if the issues which science predicts are not addressed.

Nobody knows how much or when, and that's a lot of the problem. But even if we knew, that wouldn't necessarily cause people to address it. See: Social Security and the New Orleans dike system

So what abuse for political purposes can you identify out side of the current administration's denial of CC.

You mean what issues? There are lots that should be obvious:
-Anti-Vax
-Anti-GMO/"organic"
-Anti-Nuclear
-Anti-abortion
-Herbal/natural remedies/supplements
Somewhat both sides of:
-Fracking
-Pipelines
-Clean energy
-Environmentalism in general

Some are of course interconnected.

 

[anorlunda]

Are you saying that if a policies for whatever reason are inappropriate with regards to the science that scientists should not speak out as scientists?

Yes that's almost right. But I said all policies, not just policies relevant to the science.

You can take off your Nobel-laureate-hat and put on your joe-sixpack-hat to speak about policy and politics. But when speaking in a public setting where scientists are afforded great deference and respect, you should utter only the science of your field, and not a word more.

"I want to leave this world a better place for my grandchildren." Many people feel that way. It is a moral choice. But a scientist's moral voice should not be any louder than any other citizen's moral voice. I am arguing for egalitarianism in morality and politics. I oppose elitism.

 

[gleem]

But when speaking in a public setting where scientists are afforded great deference and respect, you should utter only the science of your field, and not a word more.

I could not agree with you more.

 

[gleem]

You mean what issues? There are lots that should be obvious:
-Anti-Vax
-Anti-GMO/"organic"
-Anti-Nuclear
-Anti-abortion
-Herbal/natural remedies/supplements
Somewhat both sides of:
-Fracking
-Pipelines
-Clean energy
-Environmentalism in general

Yes, sure these are issue that can have political motivations insofar as they are use to ingratiate and curry favor with the electorate. But my question had to do with actual policies that misused science for political purposes. I mentioned climate change i.e. anti CC position of the current administration for the rescinding of environmental regulations as one,

 

[Student100]

Yes, sure these are issue that can have political motivations insofar as they are use to ingratiate and curry favor with the electorate. But my question had to do with actual policies that misused science for political purposes. I mentioned climate change i.e. anti CC position of the current administration for the rescinding of environmental regulations as one,

I don't see a difference. For example, efforts to label GMOs are based on bad "science."

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, sure these are issue that can have political motivations insofar as they are use to ingratiate and curry favor with the electorate. But my question had to do with actual policies that misused science for political purposes. I mentioned climate change i.e. anti CC position of the current administration for the rescinding of environmental regulations as one,

Yes, as Student100 says, it's the same list. When politics and science mix on an issue, one side all but HAS to be on the side against science and sometimes both sides are.

 

[Dale]

I'm missing something. How expensive might it get if the issues which science predicts are not addressed. Or are you saying there are no scientific issue to be addressed.

I am saying that people generally don't care about your reasons when your action is to take money or power from them. The objection is to the action and not to the reason.

 

[gleem]

I am saying that people generally don't care about your reasons when your action is to take money or power from them. The objection is to the action and not to the reason.

... or make them do something that they do not want to do. So within the context of this thread there is no war on reason as such.

Is this "war" just a noisy refusal of a previously silent minority to accepts some facts from a few sciences that do not agree with their world view?

The noise being turned on by the implementation of unpopular policies.

Could it also be that public attitudes in general have not changed appreciably but have been amplified through social media? It is now much easier to find support for almost any view.

 

[russ_watters]

... or make them do something that they do not want to do. So within the context of this thread there is no war on reason as such.

No, it is still a war on reason, it's just that reason is the secondary target or perhaps even collateral damage. "I'm selfish so I'm not going to support funding carbon reduction" is not a viable debate stance even though it may be the truth. So instead they argue something external to avoid taking resopnsibility: "There is no AGW."

The anti-reason/science stance is just a means to the real end.

Could it also be that public attitudes in general have not changed appreciably but have been amplified through social media? It is now much easier to find support for almost any view.

Could be, yes. That may be hard to measure though. You would need an issue that predates social media and has been hammered on it, but hasn't changed for other reasons.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ok, then I think we do agree. It seems to me in medicine there are a lot of probability based statistics/predictions that don't have clear-cut cause-effect relationships or have a lot of factors that may influence the probability significantly, making it hard to isolate the impact of one in particular. I don't think your example is necessarily a great one, but I do agree the issue exists.

Those examples are ones where I'd say there are so many confounding factors with major influences that they often aren't useful...except as motivational talking points during a doctor's visit.

Epidemiology is more useful than just motivation (I'm pretty sure you'll agree but feel like someone needs to post it anyway). Whilst all the variables of a specific patient's life over a significant period of said life are difficult-impossible to determine (and not all the variables are known) it's still useful medical advice to work off of the statistics that have been validated. For example: if controlling for all known variables it's observed that smokers are 90% more likely to contract lung cancer than non-smokers it's sound medical practice to advise against smoking, even if you can't be completely sure that your patient would fall into the 10% cancer-free smoker group.

As a general note there have been posts in this thread disparaging the social sciences, and even medicine, as not science. I'm a little surprised and quite dismayed at that. If scientists disparage each other's fields without acknowledging how scientific theory is being applied what hope does the layman have of figuring out what is legitimate?

 

[jack action]

No, it is still a war on reason, it's just that reason is the secondary target or perhaps even collateral damage. "I'm selfish so I'm not going to support funding carbon reduction" is not a viable debate stance even though it may be the truth. So instead they argue something external to avoid taking resopnsibility: "There is no AGW."

This is a logical fallacy that would certainly convince me to NOT follow people advocating for actions against global warming. If this is considered an argument, than it is a really bad one.

It is not that people necessarily don't want to support funding carbon reduction. Because where the money goes is of real importance. Where science is failing in this particular debate is that the burden of proof about which methods are valid has not been met. Heck, nobody is even sure about what are the true repercussions of global warming.

Sadly, people with pecuniary interest in these solutions have tendencies to say that we must invest in their solutions or prove they are wrong. That is not how it should work: You must prove, beyond any doubt, that your method will give results. Especially if you will make money out of it. Especially if that money is government funded.

Last night, a telemarketer tried to sell me windows; I told him I didn't own a house and he hung up. It doesn't mean it was true. I'm not going to waste time evaluating the validity of his offer or check his credentials. Anything to get those leeches of my back.

Imagine if I wasted my time investigating every person that claims having the solution to save the world.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a logical fallacy that would certainly convince me to NOT follow people advocating for actions against global warming. If this is considered an argument, than it is a really bad one.

It isn't an argument, it is an example (and I accidentally picked one you care a lot about...). Maybe you oppose anti-AGW funding for better reasons, but not everyone does. And you must be aware that those who oppose, including those who oppose for non-factual reasons, tend to be those with a bias toward the status quo (Republicans). By the way, you can count me as being on the same side as you on that debate. But again - just an example.

If you don't like that one, try another one: Social Security. Most people are aware it will go bankrupt in the 2030s. Most people are also aware that the longer we wait to do something about it, the worse the issue (the more expensive the fix) gets. But there are people who argue that nothing needs to be done now or even at all. And looking at the demographics tells you they are predominantly those who are currently getting or soon to be getting the benefits.

Those who do/will benefit from the flawed program support the status quo and those who expect not to support changes. Greed vs greed. Heck, it doesn't even matter if one happens to be on the right side of the facts: do you really think a large fraction of today's young people won't flip their positions when they get close to retirement age?

 

[StatGuy2000]

If you don't like that one, try another one: Social Security. Most people are aware it will go bankrupt in the 2030s. Most people are also aware that the longer we wait to do something about it, the worse the issue (the more expensive the fix) gets. But there are people who argue that nothing needs to be done now or even at all. And looking at the demographics tells you they are predominantly those who are currently getting or soon to be getting the benefits.

Those who do/will benefit from the flawed program support the status quo and those who expect not to support changes. Greed vs greed. Heck, it doesn't even matter if one happens to be on the right side of the facts: do you really think a large fraction of today's young people won't flip their positions when they get close to retirement age?

On a side note, I have already accepted the reality that Social Security, or its Canadian equivalent (the Canada Pension Plan, or CPP), will not be available and/or sufficient to support me financially when I'm close to retirement age. Of course, I have also conceded that I may never retire.

 

[jack action]

As a general note there have been posts in this thread disparaging the social sciences, and even medicine, as not science. I'm a little surprised and quite dismayed at that.

I think it's more about separating a scientific fact from a statistical analysis which are often used in social sciences and medicine.

What I consider "science" are statements like this: «If I drive a car at 50km/h for 2 hours, I will travel 100 km.» That is a fact that is indisputable.

For example: if controlling for all known variables it's observed that smokers are 90% more likely to contract lung cancer than non-smokers it's sound medical practice to advise against smoking, even if you can't be completely sure that your patient would fall into the 10% cancer-free smoker group.

This is a perfect example on how you can mislead with statistics. Anyone reading this automatically imagine that 9 out of 10 smokers will get lung cancer. But it actually compares risk with non-smokers. What is the risk of getting lung cancer for a non-smokers?

More real numbers (with a positive spin) are that 84% of male smokers will NOT have lung cancer; That number goes up to 90% for women smokers. Even considering "heavy smokers", 75% of them won't get lung cancer. These numbers don't say to me "if you smoke, you will get lung cancer." Far from it.

I don't mind getting those analyses such that I can make an informed decision. They may even lead us to true scientific facts about smoking one day. But I do mind having the government making decisions for me or taking my money to promote certain behaviors based on these type of statistical analyses.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think it's more about separating a scientific fact from a statistical analysis which are often used in social sciences and medicine.

What I consider "science" are statements like this: «If I drive a car at 50km/h for 2 hours, I will travel 100 km.» That is a fact that is indisputable.

Are you saying you'd only consider a priori knowledge to be science? Because outside of mathematics most scientific fields would fail this criterion.

This is a perfect example on how you can mislead with statistics. Anyone reading this automatically imagine that 9 out of 10 smokers will get lung cancer. But it actually compares risk with non-smokers. What is the risk of getting lung cancer for a non-smokers?

I don't think odds ratios are inherently misleading but you're right in that they can be used as such, frequently by the media that take detailed peer-reviewed articles and reduced it to headlines along the lines of "BACON DOUBLES RISK OF CANCER!"

More real numbers (with a positive spin) are that 84% of male smokers will NOT have lung cancer; That number goes up to 90% for women smokers. Even considering "heavy smokers", 75% of them won't get lung cancer. These numbers don't say to me "if you smoke, you will get lung cancer." Far from it.

I'm sceptical as to the credibility of that site. But regardless a simple pubmed search shows that the OR in large scale studies is calculated to be >100 for men and >60 for women:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296911/

Given the percentage chance of developing lung cancer and the fact that smoking can increase this chance by orders of magnitude it's not misleading to advise against smoking on the basis of that. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point?

I don't mind getting those analyses such that I can make an informed decision. They may even lead us to true scientific facts about smoking one day. But I do mind having the government making decisions for me or taking my money to promote certain behaviors based on these type of statistical analyses.

Am I misinterpreting this or are you seriously suggesting that there is an open debate about whether or not smoking causes lung cancer...?

 

[jack action]

Maybe you oppose anti-AGW funding

If you don't like that one, try another one: Social Security.

It's not about what is my opinion about any of those subjects. It's respecting everyone's opinion. To get back closer to the thread subject, it's socialism that I don't like and I think it will hurt the trust people can have in science.

Socialism is about forcing everyone to go in the same direction. If it's the right direction, we win a lot. If it's the wrong direction, we loose it all. Statistically, we are bound to make a wrong decision. That is why I prefer letting people make their own choices where some will loose but some will also win. We need survivors. We need people who chose the right way, that we can follow, even if it was pure dumb luck.

Too many people use socialism to fund their projects. Even if there was good intentions initially, a big pile of money often attracts the wrong crowd and that increases the risks of wrong decisions.

In recent history, we showed the extend of what could be achieved with scientific facts. It appears that people now solely use the "weak" sibling of science - statistics and probability - to define their findings as "scientific", especially for social programs or laws. To me, statistics are observations, not facts. A distinction that is not clearly understood by non-initiated. And when all of these social decisions won't work, the masses may put all extents of science in the same bag. IMHO, it has already begun. I wish something would be done before someone decide to burn all the books.

 

[gleem]

That is why I prefer letting people make their own choices where some will loose but some will also win.

But isn't this anarchy or at least minarchy From here we only start moving more in the same direction.

 

[jack action]

Given the percentage chance of developing lung cancer and the fact that smoking can increase this chance by orders of magnitude it's not misleading to advise against smoking on the basis of that. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point?

First of all, you are still quoting ratios. For me, the real question is: "If I smoke, what are the odds I will get cancer?" That is a simple question to answer: You count all the smokers and you count how many got lung cancer. This is the odd I'm interested in, for smoking or any other thing I'm interested in.

Second, I appreciate the research and that some expert advises me about the subject. Though, I won't appreciate if that expert takes the decision for me. For example, I like knowing what are the odds of survival in an accident I'm getting with or without a seat belt, such that I can make an informed decision; I don't like having a law forcing me to use a seat belt.

Am I misinterpreting this or are you seriously suggesting that there is an open debate about whether or not smoking causes lung cancer...?

Can you definitely state that if someone smoke, he will get lung cancer? If not, then there are effects that you don't fully grasp and more research is needed. But the greater the odds means that you are probably on the right path.

When I hear those numbers, I tend to think about those who don't get lung cancer. Are they superheroes? How can they protect themselves from all of this smoke they are inhaling? I wish there were a lot more studies about these people. Instead, we tends to attack them because they contradict and disprove the anti-tobacco lobby.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Can you definitely state that if someone smoke drives drunk, he will get lung cancer die in a car accident? If not, then there are effects that you don't fully grasp and more research is needed. But the greater the odds means that you are probably on the right path.

When I hear those numbers, I tend to think about those who don't get lung cancer die in a car accident. Are they superheroes? How can they protect themselves from all of this smoke they are inhaling alcohol they're ingesting? I wish there were a lot more studies about these people. Instead, we tends to attack them because they contradict and disprove the anti-tobacco anti-booze lobby.

 

[jack action]

But isn't this anarchy or at least minarchy From here we only start moving more in the same direction.

Not necessarily. Let's take house insurance for example. I can choose to which insurance group I will belong. I can choose to not get insurance at all. We can still get together to do stuff. The fun thing is that I can also be part of a different insurance group for my car insurance.

It's the same thing for pension plans or unemployment insurance. I don't understand the importance of having one, mandatory, nation-wide plan. The only thing I agree as a social measure is that you give the minimum required for survival to those in needs. Other than that, let people make their own choices with their own money. That is best example of a democracy that works.

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm not sure the implied analogy here is valid.

First, I think we understand the causal factors that connect drunk driving with accidents better than we understand the causal factors that connect smoking with lung cancer. So we have more of a basis to argue that people should not drive drunk, over and above just quoting the statistics. (It also helps that the connection between drunk driving and accidents covers a much shorter time span than the connection between smoking and lung cancer, so it's easier to convince people on a gut level that it exists and get them to act accordingly.)

Second, I think it's less likely that there is a useful common factor to be discovered among people who drive drunk and don't die in accidents (other than "dumb luck") than that there is a useful common factor to be discovered among people who smoke but don't get lung cancer. So I'm not sure that an intuitive sense that there's not much to be gained by studying people who drive drunk and don't die in accidents should carry over to smoking/lung cancer.

 

[jack action]

@Bandersnatch :

Sorry, even if you meant to be funny, I totally agree with what you corrected.

Right now, we stop vehicles on the road for no reasons at all. We test the drivers for alcohol and give them a criminal record if they go over the limit (which, funny thing, can often vary according to the type of license you have, like a new driver or a truck driver). Around here, drunk people sleeping in their car are arrested and given a criminal record. The law states that you cannot have control of a vehicle while drunk. Pure insanity.

Think about it: A criminal record. Like someone who stoled or killed. What have they done wrong? Nothing. Too often, you couldn't even identified erratic behavior while driving. The crime they committed is that they chose to take a risk.

Here, we get the same kind of statistics from the anti-booze lobby: In all accidents, 40% had alcohol involved. That doesn't say what are your odds of having an accident while drunk. The real question I want to answer is: "If I drive drunk, what are the odds I will get an accident?" That is a simple question to answer: You count all the smokers drunk driver trips and you count how many got lung cancer ended up in an accident. This is the odd I'm interested in, for smoking drunk driving or any other thing I'm interested in.

To me, it's like giving a criminal record to someone playing baseball because he could of hurt someone swinging a bat. Can we wait until the person actually do harm or declare his intention to do so before considering him a criminal?

Deciding the correct behavior for everyone in all circumstances will not end well for our societies. Anyway, why would anyone want to live in a society where they don't trust others to do the right thing? That's insane. It's certainly not solidarity.

Don't get me wrong, you should get arrested by the police if you drive too fast, erratically or in any dangerous way, whether you are drunk or not. Does it require a criminal record? That seems harsh in my opinion. If someone's drunk, just force him to call a taxi and a towing.

What are the results of these harsh laws? They don't work because there are still drunk drivers. We are just getting more and more enraged about them. I refuse to live that way.

By the way, I don't drink or smoke, never did.

 

[gleem]

@jack action
Please stop posting I am having a hard time trying to keep up with your controvertible opinions. I haven't the time to respond. and I think a lot of this, although stimulating , is getting off topic.

 

[Bandersnatch]

First, I think we understand the causal factors that connect drunk driving with accidents better than we understand the causal factors that connect smoking with lung cancer.

How would you qualify 'better', though? DNA damage by carcinogens and the subsequent repair errors leading to development of tumorous tissue is as much of a fact as is impairment of attention, motor skills, and decision making when inebriated. Is one science better than the other? The only major difference I see is that the latter is easier to understand intuitively, since most of us have repeatedly experienced intoxication one way or another, while very few have such intimate familiarity with cellular processes.

On the second point, I also disagree. Both involve 'dumb luck'. In case of cancer it's pure chance which part of DNA will get damaged and what copying errors will pop up in the process of repairing the damage. Both also involve individual biology as a factor (e.g. better functioning repair mechanisms in one, and better alcohol metabolism in the other). Seems equally worthwhile to study those in both (the original post also asserted that these aren't studied).@jack action are you saying that, even though you must have experienced inebriation in your life, personally or otherwise, you're unconvinced that being drunk makes you a bad driver, and only a very specific and conveniently unavailable statistical data would make you change your mind?
I don't think the thread topic covers whether or not prevention should or shouldn't be implemented by our more or less benevolent socialist overlords, so I shan't comment. How we decide what is and isn't real seems right on track, though.

 

[jack action]

In order to stay on topic, I'll restate my opinion in other words and in a more general way.

Imagine we raise a generation of kids telling them that if you drive at 50 km/h for 2 hours you will travel 100 km. We tell them it's a scientific fact. We also tell them that if you drive drunk or over the speed limit, you will get into an accident. We also tell them science proves it. The kids don't know any better and have no reasons to doubt us.

The kids grow up and begin driving cars. They can easily verify that the first statement is true. Every time they wish to test it, it will be true. But if they try to drive drunk or over the speed limit or witness someone who does, they will most likely notice that there will be no accidents. Depending on how religiously we enforced this view about drunk driving or above the speed limit, they may become upset, like they've been lied too. They may start wondering if science can be wrong. What can they trust? «I drove at 120 km/h and nothing happened, maybe I can go 200 km/h and nothing will happen either. Who knows, science is unreliable.» «Is the Earth really revolving around the Sun or is that another science uncertainty?» You can quickly loose a whole generation this way.

That is the difference between "scientific facts" and stuff like "statistical analyses" or "computer modeling". And when statistical analyses are used by a group of people to nourish their greatest fear and pass it on to the rest of the society, you open the door to people disavowing them and their ways (i.e. science as whole) when they will realize that what was predicted did not happen.

When one says «God will always be by your side» to someone and his/her child dies, he/she tends to disavow religion. Same thing will happen to science if it is used to state things that science cannot well define (yet). IMHO, it is why some people are going back to religion thinking science is no better because of stuff like statistical analyses and computer modeling that get passed on as "scientifically proven".

 

[Bandersnatch]

That is the difference between "scientific facts" and stuff like "statistical analyses" or "computer modeling".

No, that's the difference between teaching the kids the concept of probability and not doing that. That A increases probability of B may be as much of a scientific fact as C equals D.

 

[PeterDonis]

DNA damage by carcinogens and the subsequent repair errors leading to development of tumorous tissue is as much of a fact as is impairment of attention, motor skills, and decision making when inebriated.

We can directly observe and measure impairment due to blood alcohol level. We don't directly observe and measure DNA-damaged cells developing into tumors; we infer it from statistical studies. That's what I mean when I say we have "better" knowledge of causal factors in the former case than in the latter.

Both involve 'dumb luck'. In case of cancer it's pure chance which part of DNA will get damaged and what copying errors will pop up in the process of repairing the damage. Both also involve individual biology as a factor (e.g. better functioning repair mechanisms in one, and better alcohol metabolism in the other).

Hm, yes, fair point.