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.