data and the dumbarse
“Scientific skepticism looks at the totality of evidence and evaluates each piece of it for its quality. Cranks are very selective about the data they choose to present, often vastly overselling its quality and vastly exaggerating flaws in current theory, in turn vastly overestimating their own knowledge of a subject and underestimating that of experts. This is perhaps the key characteristic of cranks and the biggest difference between a crank and a true skeptic. In addition, because the mainstream rejects them, there is often a strong sense of being underappreciated, leading them to view their failure to persuade the mainstream of the correctness of their views as being due to conspiracies or money. Antivaccinationists, for example, view the rejection of their belief that mercury in vaccines or even vaccines themselves cause autism by mainstream medicine as evidence that we’re all in the pocket of big pharma. Global warming denialists see the consensus as being politically motivated by the desire of “liberals” to tell them how to live. Evolution deniers view evolution as the result of atheistic scientists wanting to deny God.”
Nail, meet hammer. The whole post is lovely, along with the comments, complete with some sly, ingenuous wriggling from the denialists.
It neatly articulates a running problem with the notion of scientific consensus, by which I construct most of my beliefs about the larger world. There are stronger and softer consensuses (consensi, please?) and many of the most important areas rely on smaller effects, with higher levels of noise – the effect of passive compared to active smoking is the cited example.
Unfortunately, it is not possible for us scientific civilians to retreat from the street fighting and wait for some battered hero to stagger out of the smoke with a note saying “This is TEH WORD.” We need to make decisions about our own lives around incomplete science, in which the researchers are enthusiastically accepting money from sources which surely celebrate a particular outcome.
Obesity is a clear example. Just this weekend, stuffed with plum pudding and contemplating some alimentary discipline in the New Year, a group of us talked diets. High carb, low carb, high protein, low protein, sugar v fat…. what worked for each person seemed diametrically opposite, and none of us are reliable reporters of our grazing habits.
This comes from John Quiggin’s post on Crooked Timber about “Science, and anti-science, in action”, which is also a fine read from a man who claims to be on holiday. But he did promise to post if he got bored.Th
The image is a contemporary political cartoon about the Scopes trial.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Thanks for the link David, that was a really interesting post. From the comments:
‘The one little dollop of magic that makes the whole thing work is the scientists who have the guts to say “I don’t know”‘
Science isn’t like the humanities; individual opinions and insights don’t matter much in the big picture (unless one happens to be Newton or Einstein, and god knows most crank skeptics have egos to match them). Science is about cumulative understanding. When I have to say “I don’t know”, where am I going to turn for the answer? The people who know more about it than me – the people who know what they’re talking about! As orac says, authority DOES matter. What those people think is defined as the consensus. If they don’t agree, there’s no consensus, no real answer, and it’s up to my own intellect and instinct to figure things out.
The one thing a science degree has taught me is that some honesty and humility about my own understanding matters, and makes for great motivation and impressive results. It’s what I love about science. The process is so demonstrably powerful, and what one learns is fascinating and useful. IMNSHO scientific understanding deserves to sit side by side with great art, literature, music, &c in the temple of human achievement.
apologies if I sound over-enthusiastic; too early in the morning for moderation. A happy new year’s to all!
December 30th, 2007 at 7:08 am
As you see with obesity, looking at evidence and thinking about what you see is the start. Isn’t the end of course, takes more work than that!
I’m fond of the Junkfood Science blog for good solid reporting on the science about obesity, she points out that despite the scientific consensus on it being clear – diets don’t work, exercise keeps you healthy not slim, fat and thin people eat the same and exercise the same on the average – very little of that consensus gets to the mainstream media.
Which is where most of us get our knowledge of scientific consensus from.
There’s also the “scientists say” line, where as long as someone has some connection with some science or other, their words are printed as representative, even if their science is marginal or has nothing to do with the subject.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I don’t know when I became first hooked on evidence from solid authorities and some sensible consensus but it started slowly probably when I was a kid on the farm and used to look at the rain gauge instead of talking bullshit with other farmers about how much rain there was. (my father used to go for evidence despite considerable pressure through ridicule) Hanging around with superstitous farmers forced me into looking for evidence and perhaps more importantly starting on the journey to learn what was good evidence, bad evidence or best available evidence.
The older I get the more I think the scientific method is important ( tempered with learnings from human behaviour and such) and the less tolerant I am of woolly thinking from new age twinks, or fuzzy ideologues, green fundies or progress at all costs boosters.
The obesity issue is crowded with ideology, self interest, prejudice, and blinkered “research” at the moment and needs a big (fat, huge, solid) shakeout. Having spent yesterday at Chunky Thighs Caravan Park down the coast I needed a jolt from my biases – thankfully Lyndall Crisp’s article in Friday’s Fin Review provided it with a well balanced article drawing together some of the current obesity threads. Basically it’s better to be a bit overweight and fit than to be skinny and not fit. It hardly needs mentioning that it is better to not be overweight and to be fit.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Unfortunately, it is not possible for us scientific civilians to retreat from the street fighting and wait for some battered hero to stagger out of the smoke with a note…”
*Cheers*
December 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
The opponents of Junkfood Science claim that it denies the health problems of obesity, which are pretty clear.
Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of “noise”, as Orlac uses the term, in the discussion which occurs inside a giant, distorting amplifier of social attitudes.
I can’t think of another area in which the science so obviously interrelates with the subjective experience and self of the researchers, except for the debate about race and IQ. Which of course exemplifies why the whole huge apparatus of testing, repetition and peer review is so important.
As far as I can tell, in a very civilian way, no serious experts would deny that we all eat more than we need, and our weight depends on how we dump or store the excess. Or that we need to exercise in a culture that makes this extremely difficult. How many mothers do you know who maintain an exercise program?
December 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
The “skinny and not fit” can mean all sorts of ugly health things. Like “bad fat” deep inside, according to yet more alarming British research from 2007.
The Crisp article is doing a big fat hideypoos behind the Fairfax paywall, of course. I’m not sure it is online at all.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
My christmas present to myself was to renew my membership with Victorian National Parks Association. They have a bushwalking group and as a member you get sent booklets full of descriptions of upcoming walks – it’s so nice to leaf through and pick out your favourites. Those people have all kinds of body shapes.
Here’s another great link I found via CT (Chris Bertram) – enjoy!