Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

psychology of the rejection of scientific findings

4K views 52 replies 18 participants last post by  SINC 
#1 ·
I was thinking about posting this in the GHG thread, but it seems to me that this topic is sufficiently broad and of general interest to warrant it's own thread.

There's an interesting review of a current paper published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, which examines the strategies people use to cope with conflicts that arise between their beliefs and scientific findings.

There are several common strategies, which will be familiar to anyone who's ever engaged a creationist or climate-change denier, ranging from source derogation to identifying perceived methodological flaws without the necessary data or scientific expertise. But the strategy of primary interest in this paper is called 'scientific impotence', which is the claim that a given belief pertains to a topic outside of the realm of scientific inquiry (e.g. "the climate is too complicated for science to understand it" or "science cannot inform us about human spirituality").

I'm curious about how other ehMaccers perceive the limitations of science, to what extent they feel science conflicts with their beliefs, and how they deal with these conflicts.

Personally, when science conflicts with my beliefs, I change my beliefs, and suffer no cognitive dissonance at all. But I accept that I'm likely a minority in this regard.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
There are a number of issues with the study: the sample size was small, college students are probably atypical in that they're constantly being exposed to challenging information, and there was no attempt to determine the students' scientific literacy on the topic going in. That last point seems rather significant, since the students were recruited from a psychology course, and majors in that field might be expected to already know the state of the field. So, this study would seem to fall in the large category of those that are intriguing, but in need of a more rigorous replication.
But despite the weakness of the study, I see similar coping mechanisms employed by those who favour one scientific theory over another and feel threatened when it's undermined.
 
#4 ·
An interesting posting, bryanc. Personally, I would tend to accept most scientific findings if I feel that the scientific methodology has been undertaken in an acceptable manner, it is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal and has withstood the testings by other scientists attempting to come up with similar findings.

I know that this position might be blasted by some, but I am not about to throw all science out the window because of some scientists who have used insufficient data or have even fudged the data, be it GHG, cancer research, MS research, etc. I am skeptical about science that is funded by large corporations (e.g., tobacco companies) that suddenly find that smoking does not cause lung cancer. Such findings I consider to be untenable. The scientific findings that I will accept have to be valid and reliable, not smoke and mirrors with stats and incomplete data.

Paix, mon ami.
 
#9 ·
The scientific findings that I will accept have to be valid and reliable, not smoke and mirrors with stats and incomplete data.
I generally concur with Dr. G. and this statement and accept most science as valid.

As for AGW, there are far too many untruths, scientists caught red handed fudging data, rigged methodology (ie: dropping numerous cold temperature reporting stations to tilt findings to suit the position) and I could go on. Science's AGW goal appears to be to scare the populace into believing their shaky findings.
 
#7 ·
I read Robert Shapiro's Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. It listed various theories of evolution and then described a scientific conference on evolution in which scientists streamed to attend only the conference presentations that supported their own beliefs. Those who asked questions about the validity of the various presentations were shouted down and excoriated by the scientists in attendance.
 
#8 ·
I'm curious about how other ehMaccers perceive the limitations of science, to what extent they feel science conflicts with their beliefs, and how they deal with these conflicts.

Personally, when science conflicts with my beliefs, I change my beliefs, and suffer no cognitive dissonance at all. But I accept that I'm likely a minority in this regard.
I do not think you are alone at all bryanc. I grew up in a somewhat religious family, attending faith based school from pre-school to high school. I was fortunate enough to be involved with a lot of educators who took a soft line stance on how to teach faith i.e. they believed the Bible was a collection of stories to aid us in living a good life, as opposed to a collection of stories that were to be considered fact.

Throughout high school I started to struggle with my faith and its place in the world. Once I began to question it, I quickly realized science and my faith did not cooperate! It was easy, however, for me to rapidly change my beliefs without any struggle whatsoever. I was so enthralled with the logic of science that I didn't see a place for faith in my lifestyle. However, sometimes science may not provide the linear explanations we want, and thus it can be difficult to accept for some.
 
#10 ·
However, sometimes science may not provide the linear explanations we want, and thus it can be difficult to accept for some.
Science is not a monolith, but a series of competing ideas operating in a (semi-free) market. We do not "choose science" but choose from competing theories.
 
#13 ·
Scientists are mere mortals. Their data and logic are as prone to error, influence and outright BS as anyone else's. If you look at statements made by scientists like David Suzuki concerning global warming and can conclude its all about data and logic you'd be gravely mistaken. He's as emotionally invested as any religious adherent in AGW and no data or logic would easily change that position. You see the same tribalism demonstrated in the CRU emails. In a perfect world, blind faith in science would be wise but as long as flawed individuals are conducting the studies, healthy skepticism is a good thing.

Cheers
MacGuiver
 
#20 ·
No cognitive dissonance here. Like a smoker, I simply choose to live my life according to how I see fit, even though I am fully aware of the implications, i.e.: cancer.
The irony of this being that you would never KNOW the risks of smoking without science to make that connection. Not every smoker gets emphyzema or cancer, etc.

Without scientific method, chaos rules. It's really just that simple.

Yes, scientists can and do fudge data. Ever heard of Big Pharma or Big Oil? Scientists are as prone to bribery and other failings as the rest of us.

But the beauty of the system is that a finding HAS to be able to be reproduced, ie proven to be true. Unless you believe ALL scientists are in on a global conspiracy (in which case, this is me calling you a nutcase), then the truth will out. It may take longer than some of us would like (doesn't it always?), but the truth will out.
 
#15 ·
Science, by its very definition, is a fluid, unsettled discipline. What reigns as "truth" today may well be tomorrow's bird cage liner.

As such, you have examples like Piltdown Man where the best scientists of the time were flummoxed. There was evidence that obviously made men make up their minds, one way or the other. So, who was right & who was wrong? Depends on the time of the century. Was this belief system governed by some deep seated psychological need? Don't know, don't care.

What about the Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus naming issue? Robert Bakker believes that the two skeletons are different enough to justify distinct genus and still (correctly, by his belief) uses Brontosaurus. Many don't. Is he wrong or right?

How about the current debate regarding "Ardi", the so-called homonid ancestor? Some say he/she/it belongs in the human family tree, others are not convinced. Further knowledge will help to make an informed decision.

I could go on but suffice it to say that there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of the exact same process littering scientific journals. It's the nature of the beast. Neither good nor bad, merely "is".

As far as AGW is concerned, there are scientists with enough knowledge & credentials to sufficiently be called experts who disagree.

Why are they wrong and the "warmists" right?

Despite the obvious and decided slant on my input in the GHG thread, I repeat, I have not yet made up my mind. I have no axe to grind, other than to help provide the opposing side of the argument if for no other reasons than balance and to silence the shrills.

As to your question, science is truly only limited by what is not currently known. The human condition (political bias, agenda, religious doctrine, whatever) are not limiting factors but mere contaminants of the truth.

Science largely governs my beliefs but does not rule every aspect of my life.

But, whose science?;)
 
#18 ·
"I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research."

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. It is no mere chance that our older universities developed from clerical schools. Both churches and universities — insofar as they live up to their true function — serve the ennoblement of the individual. They seek to fulfill this great task by spreading moral and cultural understanding, renouncing the use of brute force.
The essential unity of ecclesiastical and secular institutions was lost during the 19th century, to the point of senseless hostility. Yet there was never any doubt as to the striving for culture. No one doubted the sacredness of the goal. It was the approach that was disputed." quoted from Albert Einstein

Maybe we need to be able to step back from our assumptions and our believed truths. I think that Einstein knew best a theory is just a theory until proved or disproved, not a soap box to cry that this is the truth or a launch point for hostility. We all, on this board, forget that.
 
#19 ·
Paradigm Shift Needed to embrace science.

There is a fundamental dichotomy between religion and science that is really quite difficult to reconcile.

As I see it, religion starts by answering the question "Why?". Once that answer is given, "God" in one form or another, Who, What, Where, When and How follow and are immutable.

Science asks the questions Who, What, Where and When, and records the answers diligently. Once enough observations are made, a postulate is entertained as to How. "Why" does not exist and is beyhond the pervue of the investigation.

Once the postulate is has been made, the observations begin anew. The postulate is verified or altered or outright rejected. It is in no way ever immutable.

I can imagine that for someone with a strong religious upbringing, stepping into the scientific venue is very much like stepping onto shifting sands. They are looking to replace one certainty with another. That is not the way it works. It would be very disquieting.

As for who do you believe? The postulates that have been rigorously challenged and defended over time will most probably approximate to "Truth" in the religious sense. This is done through the peer publishing system. It is not perfect. Especially on the leading edge, it can be rancorous and loud. But I do not think there has been anything better brought into being. That is why it is used today in most branches of inquirey.
 
#22 ·
This thread should have been called "The Psychology of the rejection of preconceived ideas." Scientists convinced that theories of AGW are immutable will fit in quite nicely here.
 
#24 ·
Quoting myself, but what the heck.

Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism - Times Online

Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism

Written by Ben Webster, Times Online | 28 May 2010

Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.

The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old institution’s official position on global warming. It will publish a new “guide to the science of climate change” this summer. The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.
An excellent opportunity to study the psychology of the rejection of preconceived notions.
 
#38 ·
Interesting



I had not seen that article before. An interesting proposition. I am sure there will be more to come as exploration takes place.

Back to that of which I wrote:

1. In terms of geological epochs, we are at an interstitial part of an ice age. Your statement above is NOT out of line. Being from Northern Ontario from a town with a record low temperature of -71F, one of our saying used to be "Global Warming Can't come Soon Enough". Cooling has powerful resonance for me. All it would take for a big drop is a very large volcanic eruption - Krakatoa size would affect us for a few years. something like Mount Toba ( see Bradshaw foundation human time line JOURNEY OF MANKIND - The Peopling of the World) would decimate whole populations and could cause an ice age.

2. On global warming:

a.) CO2 is a green house gas - that is fact
b.) Methane even more so -*coming from thawing permafrost, rotting vegetation
c.) We are greatly increasing the content of CO2 and will inadvertently release methane.

These are mechanisms scientists are watching.

3. On Feedback

There are two types of feedback loops - positive and negative.

Negative feedback is that which we are accustomed to. It is self correcting or better yet self damping. The familiar example is the thermostat in our house. We turn up the heat. The furnace comes on. When the house reaches heat, the thermostat cuts out and the temperature falls until the furnace is triggered to come back on again. It is not scary.

Positive feedback is scary. You turn up the CO2 so the temperature warms, so the permafrost melts that lets methane out and dead vegetation breaks down faster letting out much more methane and CO2, both of which cause the temperature to warm faster - with an equalibrium point not known.

Positive feedback is what is scaring the crap out of some scientists. Others are probably in it for the cause so to speak. Climate has warmed and cooled before. This time we are a large additional factor. Is the equalibrium at 3 degrees hotter, 10 degrees hotter or 100 degrees hotter. They are playing with really complicated models and frankly I do not think that they know at this point.

4. Back to Politics

If I have to rule, betting making policies on global warming or cooling, I'll bet on Global Warming because the down side of Global Warming is potentially very large.

If I am wrong and there is global cooling, oceans will shrink, more land mass will be exposed (look for articles on the size of Beringia - It was larger than Texas). There will be places to go.

If I am right and I "Stop Global Warming", I may have just stopped global extinction.

As I said before, you are very much playing the wrong edge of the perceived or currently known upside/downside risks associated with each.

Notice I have never used the terms "believe in" or "have faith in". Based on the data we have these are the potential problems. So which way do you want to bet? The perfect bet is to say we have been in and out of ice ages for approximately 1 million years now. Things have survived. Reduce emissions to 0 and everything remains the same...except for us. We have calamity. So we are making other bets instead.
 
#34 ·
And you'd be equally foolish as you've been all along on this....but what else is new. :rolleyes:

He understands the science - you have not a clue

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington
 
#35 ·
Perfect example. He says he is right without offering the tiniest shred of evidence to back it up.
 
#37 ·
The belief of science

Science itself is a belief, a belief in a method rather than a set of ideas promulgated as fact. It's like the contrast between doing and having, action and stasis. Those who reject science in favour of religion prefer the known (belief) to the adventure and uncertainty of discovery.

Both science and religion are human endeavours but the latter offers more comfort than the former. Comfort is akin to security, and security is a basic need. Curiosity implies risk, and part of the gamble is losing one's framework for their sense of self.

Also, science is evolving. Technological advances allow us to ask questions of phenomena that were not even known 200 years ago. This implies, to me, that there is much more that is not known than is known. I think this might be frightening to some people.
 
#39 ·
We don't know all there is about aerodynamics either - it does not prevent us in any way from acting on what we DO know. Most get on planes quite comfortably.
Just because there are unknowns - it does not obviate what we do know and understand.
We have more than sufficient knowledge in a number of key areas to act with a high degree of confidence.
 
#40 ·
We have more than sufficient knowledge in a number of key areas to act with a high degree of confidence.
Except of course with the uncertainty of AGW. What with fudged data, Himalayan glaciers, ice pack miscues, suspect e-mails, dropped cold weather station monitoring to skew results and the list goes on.

Yeah right, I soooo confident. :rolleyes:
 
#47 ·
Lichen: Those are a mix of facts and assumptions, many of which don't have broad scientific backing. It isn't computing power we lack to create effective models--it's an understanding of what happens in real life that we lack. Nobody is going to insert data into those models and find a surprise. The models are are already prejudiced to deliver a certain type of information.

We must make effective stewardship decisions all of the time. Some of them make sense, and some of them are invented by ninnies with a philosophical or social axe to grind, or a near-religious belief in Gaia. Even among stewardship decisions we need to choose those that make the most effective use of our time and resources--not merely those decisions backed by those advertising the biggest apocalypse scenario.
 
#52 ·
Well found!
 
#53 ·
Well, there goes climate change, blown all to hell:

NASA no longer shows any greenhouse gas "backradiation" in its relevant graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth. In simple terms, GHG theory may have applied an “average temperature” method of no more use than a rule of thumb calculation.
For once their methods are exposed as nothing more than guesses at best. :clap::clap:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top