Mind bending

Greetings on a surprisingly cool November morning.

I've recently been thinking about the rise of mistrust in science. There are a couple of obvious examples: climate change denial and the anti-vaccination movement. I'm not going to discuss these particular issues but I am interested in how they have precipitated a challenge to the authority of the scientific method and research in general.

I trust the scientific method - it makes sense to me. It is self-correcting, which means it is tolerant of mistakes. Mistakes are a very human trait. Whether a mistake is the result of malice, self-interest, carelessness or simple misinterpretation, a theory that is falsely substantiated will ultimately be exposed and corrected.

What science does not promise is certainty. We have varying levels of confidence ranging from "maybe this is how it is" to "you can bet your life on it". We wouldn't build an aeroplane if the theory of gravity was in the former category. But just as importantly, we cannot always wait for a theory to reach the "bet your life on it" before we act.

I don't think this will surprise anyone. Most people understand that nothing is perfect so we do the best with what we have. But more and more, this seemingly sensible approach is being challenged. We all know the frustration of being told that something is bad for us only to be told that it is actually good for us a few years later, but it seems very shortsighted to wait for a 100% guarantee that a particular cancer medicine will cure your cancer.

The problem occurs when we use extremely rare examples to drive our thinking and ignore the staggeringly huge number of examples where the correct advice has been given.  This is the basis of the Cherry picking argument, which ignores the preponderance of evidence in favour of evidence that supports the desired position.  Like denying global warming because today is the coldest day for the start of November in many decades.  Studies have shown that people who are generally uncertain about global warming are more likely to believe it is true on hot days and less likely on cold days.  It's almost like they are ignoring the word "global".

Now here is the mind-bending part.

If I have a right to my opinion, do you have a right to try to change it?  Put another way, what gives someone the "right" to challenge another, if they have a "right" to decide for themselves?

While the previous paragraph might sound interesting, it is basically rubbish.  First, while you do have a legally enforceable right to an opinion, no one has the right to their own facts. An opinion cannot extend to clearly logical fallacies like 1 + 1 = 3, but apparently, it can extend to the denial of expertise.

This is a critical shift in the public psyche. We are no longer surprised when thousands of experts are ignored because someone claiming to be an expert presents precisely the evidence desired by vested interests. 

It is not unreasonable to raise the question about expertise.  Every major scientific breakthrough in history has flown in the face of thousands of experts.  But as Carl Sagan stated, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  Each of those claims that did have to rise above the wisdom of the day met this demanding condition.

Could it not be, therefore, that such extraordinary evidence is on the side of the climate deniers and anti-vaxers?  Perhaps they are the experts making extraordinary claims, and to dub them "self-proclaimed experts" is denying them the same opportunity to rise above the wisdom of today.

Nope.

They do not have extraordinary evidence.  They willfully misinterpret, cherry-pick or outright deny the existing evidence.  This is not science, and they have no place in the scientific discourse.

It would be great if we had the time to thoroughly test all the claims, retest all the evidence collected so far, and calmly walk the sceptics through the evidence.  It would be great if we could be 100% sure of all scientific claims.  But we can't, and time is not on our side.

And yet, their voices are loud.  Too many people want to be told that the alarm bells of science can be safely ignored.

They ignore the warnings to their peril, and we tolerate their ignorance to our own peril.

Thought for the Day: It really is surprising cold today.

How embarrassment

Ok, so here is a little additional blog post that I thought I should share while I think of it.

A few years ago, Peter Jackson, the acclaimed film director, announced that he was making "The Lord of the Rings".  I watched and enjoyed these films a great deal.

DW and I watched each of the films in the cinema, and then bought the extended-release DVDs, and watched ALL the extra features and the movies again with the audio commentaries.  We watched it a lot.  We even mastered the Trivial Pursuit version.

I tell you this so that you will appreciate just how excited we were to hear that Peter Jackson's company was making "The Hobbit", the precursor to "The Lord of the Rings" and one of my favourite books as a child.

My excitement might have been slightly more than DWs.  It was slightly diminished when I heard that Guilermo del Toro was attached to direct instead of Peter.  I did enjoy "Pan's Labyrinth", directed by Guilermo, but it seemed like they were messing with a proven team.  So, it was with piqued interest that I signed in to an Internet chat at 5am on a cold Sunday morning 11 years ago to partake in a Q&A with Peter and Guilermo.

They had been collecting questions over the previous weeks and would aim to answer the top 20.  I hadn't submitted any questions but I was definitely keen to get the scoop.  Also, they did say that they would try to take extra questions if there was time.  I figured I might get lucky and think of a particularly good question that they found so intriguing and insightful that they couldn't resist.

The sign-in process was a little odd, and I found myself in a chat room that appeared to be empty - no messages, no other participants, nothing.  The title of the room was correct, but I was concerned that I hadn't signed in properly so I posted the message, "Are we starting?"

The message didn't appear, so I started to think that I should sign out and back in, when all of a sudden, names started popping up in the attendee list.  Stuff was happening.  I was in the right place.

Sure enough, a few minutes later, the name I had been waiting for appeared.  Peter Jackson.

Guilermo de Toro was there as well.  Peter posted the first message to kick things off.  Apparently, it was rainy in NZ and cloudy in London.  The host of the chat, called "WetaHost" posted the first of the 20 initial questions, about the use of physical locations vs digital locations.  Both Peter and Guilermo explained their preference for physical where possible, and I was already starting to think about what my question would be.  There was a text field on the side of the chat screen where you could pose questions that they moderators would select from.  A tricky task given the number of people posting questions.

Then it happened.

I asked my question.  My one and only question.

Not the cleverly crafted question that I had been drafting on a notepad beside the computer.  Not even some stupid fanboy question.  So, what question did I ask?

bmeade: Are we starting?

Yep, my question that I posted to test if I was in the right place spat itself out into the chat room 20 minutes later and landed in front of millions of fans desperately hoping to get to ask their own cleverly crafted or stupid fanboy question.

It sat there for a couple of seconds.  I couldn't believe it.  For a moment I thought it might just be a caching problem with my chat window, until Peter answered it.

Peter Jackson: Hi bmead - we are underway, great for you to join us!

My heart sank.  Then Guilermo chimed in...

Guilermo del Toro: We are,. Welcome

I was pretty sure I wasn't going to get to ask any more questions.  I was right.  I'm also pretty sure that was the largest number of people swearing at me in unison in my life.

I got to ask one question of Peter Jackson and Guilermo del Toro, and it was "Are we starting?"

To their credit, they were both very polite.

And of course, the Internet doesn't forget.  While several versions of this chat transcript are available, most have trimmed out the stupid questions, but a couple of complete versions exist.

And just in case you don't believe me, here is one such link: https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Jackson-Del-Toro-Chat-Up-Hobbit-With-Fans-8938.html

It's been 11 years, but I am starting to recover.  I won't say I see the funny side yet, but there is hope.

Thought for the Day:
I really did have a great question planned

Values and authenticity

Good morning, world. I hope it is sunny wherever you are, unless it is night, or you are hoping for rain.

I am participating in a discussion at work where we are hoping to drive the business side of the University with Values that are shared and committed to by all staff. This sort of activity is often embraced by management but causes eyes to roll among the staff. I'm definitely in the Management camp these days - mostly because of my extensive experience and because I can't be trusted with the systems we operate.

It is very easy to argue that these sorts of activities actually get in the way of the work, but seem from another point of view, one that has to take in the horizon as well as the day to day, these activities promote sustainability.

I was pretty sceptical when the process started, and I may have put some of my colleagues offside by disagreeing with the general sentiments. Most of the others in the review team were very happy with the process, but I felt that we needed to challenge the status quo. In my opinion, of the values we currently operate by are valid, they will still be so at the end of the process.

I don't believe in starting from scratch every time, or that our current values were fundamentally wrong. On the contrary, I think they were pretty good and I actively embraced them. But during this very process I was introduced to the concept of core vs aspirational values. I reflected on these ideas and what they meant for the current values. I realised that we had only expressed one core values, but the other two were aspirational.

This doesn't have to be a problem. It is perfectly ok to choose this - the key is that we actually make that choice.

My biggest concern is that core values need to be understood and shared. Aspirational values are great as a guide, but not achieving them is not a disaster. You can always keep trying. Core values are those that you actually live by. I think we actually have good core values but we are not sure of our is ok to express them. For example, we need to save the Uni money so that it can support more teaching and research.

This means we can't always provide the very best services, but we can provide the best service we can afford. And that is ok. Value for money is a necessary evil when it comes to research and education. Actually value for money is just a necessary evil, full stop.

So once again I will optimistically join in the conversation because I believe that, shared values are indeed the best way to ensure the sustainability of the University and produce the best graduates and research outcomes possible.

Now, don't I sound like a manager?

Thought for the day:
Working on Melbourne Cup Day sucks (I know, profound, right?)