It's 2013, and it the gap between what scientifically educated people believe and other people believe is getting wider and wider. But that is hardly surprising. I guess what is disheartening is that it has become standard, acceptable and a matter of "choice" to deny science whenever it suits you. Indeed, it's fair to say that science denial is now required if you are going to be a successful Republican politician.
If I had way more energy that I have, and if I enjoyed beating my head against a wall, I would lay out the cases here for Evolution, Climate Change, that hitting your child is bad, that vaccines work, that homeopathy is garbge, etc. But I don't.
So the better question is, why do intelligent and often college educated people believe complete crap? While at the same time they refuse to believe things that the evidence makes abundantly clear? In fact, they'll often believe really crazy things in their denial of the evidence (e.g. global warming is a conspiracy to get government grants).
I am going to take a speculative shot here. It's rooted in psychology of how we think. I do think the answer varies a bit for the items I have listed above, but I am going to apply my limited understanding of the discipline to the above examples.
Cognitive Dissonance is what occurs when we have a conflict between simultaneously held beliefs or between what we want to do and what our reason tells us we ought to do. In either case, we find a way to reduce the dissonance (as it is uncomfortable to us). This can be through dismissing one believe all together, making odd contortions of reason to convince ourselves that there is no dissonance, or making up other "facts" that smooth things over. etc.
So take Climate Change. Contrary to what you hear on Fox, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the earth is getting warmer, that a significant contributor to this is the massive amount of C02 we have put into our atmosphere, that the impact of global warming will be bad, and that the evidence is overwhelming. And they have good reason for believing this, it's this thing called science. But here is the problem: The implication of this is that we should reduce our emissions of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. But that would imply a negative economic impact. So here is the dissonance: Between what we want to do (nothing) and we ought to do (reduce CO2).
And viewed this way, you can then understand why the deniers seem to lack coherence in their statements. Because some deny that the Earth is getting hotter at all (check Facebook next snowstorm for example), while other admit the Earth is getting hotter but deny that humans had anything to do with it. Or maybe those things are true, but we don't know for sure. Or, all those things are true but it wont be so bad, so we don't need to do anything. Or all those things are true and it will be bad, but it's too late to make a difference (or even if we reduce our C02, China wont, so it wont matter).
In other words, no matter what, I want to drive my SUV without guilt. So I am going to keep making excuses to do nothing as long as I can. Now, there is the coherence! It's in the conclusion.
And there is another big factor here as well: Saliency. Global Warming is not easy to see or feel. And the impacts are far off in the future. Driving an SUV (my metaphor for doing nothing) feels good, and it feels good now. This is very much analogous to other things we ought (or ought not) do but don't: Save for retirement, eat healthy foods, not smoke, exercise, etc. It's a long list.
Having said all that, I know that the Climate Change deniers will not be persuaded. They'll pick one or more of above excuses and want to argue with me. Don't bother. It's a pointless exercise. My point is that if you do deny Climate Change, it's quite likely because you don't want to make a sacrifice over the matter. Period.
I will follow up on evolution denial, spanking etc on a later date because this is getting too long I fear.
I sort of like the combination of evolution denial and spanking in the same sentence. Just kidding!
ReplyDeleteThis post is good. I make a number of sacrifices to alleviate climate change, but not as many as I could. I suspect that if more people brought themselves to my level on sacrifices, I'd step up my own action. There's always more to do :-(
It wouldn't be quite so bad if it was *just* "I want to drive my SUV." Instead there are people with a great deal of money who want to *sell* that SUV, and who are extremely motivated to keep people feeling convinced that it's fine to buy one, or at least uncertain about whether it is or not.
ReplyDeleteFalse uncertainty is the best stock-in-trade here. Have you read _Merchants of Doubt_? Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. It's a terrifying book, because it shows that it is *the same people* selling "doubt" about global warming as did it about cigarettes. Not just the same institutions. Not the same organizations. The same actual physical people.
Thanks Mris,
ReplyDeleteI ran across this book in a book store about a year ago and spent about 20 minutes perusing. Good stuff I but didn't purchase it (I don't recall why). And I think it's an important point to understand that because vested interests do such a good job of spreading false uncertainty, it leaves less scientifically educated people unsure what to believe (or not). Nevertheless, I think the denial merchants have traction precisely because people do not want to make a sacrifice and if a "scientist" tells them, "we're fine, CO2 spew at will"- well, that's just want they wanted to hear.
For me, things get muddy when science and business mix. If someone is making alot of $$$ off of something, I am much more likely to be skeptical of the "science". I also think that just because something works doesn't mean it's safe.
ReplyDeleteTake for instance GMO's. Monsanto can tell me they are fine till the cows come home, being the non-risk taker that I am, I an not ready to believe it. I feel we won't know whether eating GM food is bad for you for years and years and I would rather not be a guinea pig.
I can think of many medications (and vaccinations for that matter) that "work" but that doesn't make them necessarily safe for everyone. A number of years ago on the advice of her Dr my Grandmother took Lipitor. She suffered from almost every single side effect and had many adverse reactions that were not known at that time to be related by now are known to be. I feel it led to her decline and ultimate death. Did it work at lowering her cholesterol, YES. Was it safe...? I have another example of my grandfather and that "surgical mesh" that has multiple lawsuits now. I won't go into the details I think you get where it goes. This is the kind of "science" that I have the most trouble with. I don't dispute global warming or gravity!, but there are so many examples of things that people with "authority" tell us are safe that later turns out to not be true. I tend to err on the side of caution.
I should add about my Grandmother, she was 110 lbs ate well and was otherwise healthy and active. She had slightly elevated cholesterol. She took Lipitor in its early years she was in her 70's! and had no signs of heart disease. She didn't tell anyone she was taking it until she started to notice side effects. I do not believe she was ever at risk for heart disease. So this wasn't a case of take lipitor or die from a heart attack.
DeleteI think you should be skeptical when the people paying for the research benefit from certain outcomes. Indeed, studies have shown that drug studies financed by Pharma tend to show better results for their drugs than independent studies. But that is the good thing about science; it allows others to attempt to replicate results. And, as a point of fact, if they cannot be replicated, one should be skeptical.
ReplyDeleteAnd that in not way contradicts my comments on vaccines. Vaccines are well established by multiple sources to have great public benefit with very little risk (not zero). It's hard to come up with a good reason to not vaccinate your kids unless you believe that everyone else is (so that society has heard immunity - in which case you let other people's kids take the vaccine risk to your kids' benefit). This is a moral hazard thing (i.e. if eveyone did it...). That is why vaccines are not optional as a matter of public policy (it should not be optional). But, having said that, the evidence suggests that vaccines pose a very, very small risk. And the link to autism is basically zero (yes, zero).
Your comments on your parents bring up I think an important point in the general discussion science and psychology. It is this, anecdotes have far more persuasive power than statistics. Add that to the Western legal notion that "causing" harm with 1/10000 prob is worse than preventing harm with 1/100 prob and we start to understand the resistance to vaccines. But logic does not get us there.
But to play along with human psychological weakness (it is was it is), I think the key is get people to understand how devastating and unnecessary it is that in 2013 that a child in the US should suffer from Polio. I mean, it's beyond ridiculous. And for what? A very much discredited tie between vaccinations and autism? If you want to get angry, get angry about the children who are now unnecessarily victims of America's modern day love affair non-evidence based medicine and non-scientific thinking. And yes, I do lay a lot of the blame for this on the false uncertainty merchants who have convinced too many of us that "science" is mysterious and can't be trusted and that any theory is as good as any other as long as you can tell a story to support what you believe in the first place.
By the way, I have idea whether your Grandmother should have been taking lipitor. All drugs have risk. With lipitor, say in my case (T1 diabetes), it gets prescribed because there is mortality "gain". That is, more people live longer because they took it rather than the other way around. But there is little doubt that it will harm some people.
ReplyDelete