Cobb: Are we moving toward a fact-free future?

[Pops]

Kurt Cobb is the author of Resource Insights blog and Prelude, a Peak Oil novel

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman likes to pose the following problem to audiences to illustrate our habitual modes of thinking:

A bat and a ball cost $1.10 together and the bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
It turns out that about 50 percent of students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology got the answer wrong. The proportion reached as high as 90 percent at other unnamed universities. Okay, now that you've had time to reflect on the answer, you'll realize that your instinct was probably to answer 10 cents. But, of course, that's wrong. And, all you have to do is some elementary math to realize it's wrong, and then arrive at the correct answer: The ball costs 5 cents.

What's in operation here are two systems of interpreting the world, one associative and one logical, often referred to in psychology as System 1 and System 2, respectively. System 1 picks up the numbers $1.10 and $1 and makes an incorrect leap that the ball costs 10 cents. System 2 does the math and then corrects the error. It's something that happens every day in our lives. But, in this case what is at stake is regarded by most people as so trivial that even very smart ones fail to engage System 2 to check their answer. If, instead of being faced with a trivial problem that has no impact on your life, you were considering which house to buy, you would probably be engaging System 2 on a regular basis. You would be trying to determine if you were getting a fair price by, for example, checking home values nearby, comparing square footage and evaluating features such as a swimming pool or finished basement.

And, this brings me to my topic. Issues such as climate change and peak oil seem so abstract to most people that they do not see them as pressing issues that require a thorough analysis and immediate action. This is true because the effects are not immediately impinging on them or, at least, they unable to connect what effects there are to themselves. And, the usual fact-filled analysis that is often thrown at them therefore doesn't interest them much. As it turns out, information that is new, but not consistent with one's current belief system, is normally discarded by most people. Typically, only some exceptional concrete change of circumstances will cause people to open their belief systems to contradictory information.

More at Resource Insights

Published on Monday, June 18, 2012 by Common Dreams
Dark Ages Redux: American Politics and the End of the Enlightenment
by John Atcheson
We are witnessing an epochal shift in our socio-political world. We are de-evolving, hurtling headlong into a past that was defined by serfs and lords; by necromancy and superstition; by policies based on fiat, not facts.

Much of what has made the modern world in general, and the United States in particular, a free and prosperous society comes directly from insights that arose during the Enlightenment.

Too bad we’re chucking it all out and returning to the Dark Ages.

Literally.

Two main things distinguished the post Enlightenment world from the pre Enlightenment Dark Ages.

First, Francis Bacon’s Novo Organum Scientiarum (The New Instrument of Science) introduced a new way of understanding the world, in which empiricism, facts and … well … reality … defined what was real. It essentially outlined the scientific method: observation and data collection, formulation of hypotheses, experiments designed to test hypotheses and elevation of these hypotheses to theories when data consistently supported them. It was and is a system based on skepticism, and a relentless and methodical search for truth.

It brought us advances and untold wealth and health. From one-horse carts to automobiles to airplanes. From leaches and phrenology to penicillin and monoclonal antibodies.

Until recently.

Now, we seek to operate by revealed truths, not reality. Decrees from on high – often issued by an unholy alliance of religious fundamentalists, self-interested corporations, and greedy fat cats – are offered up as reality by rightwing politicians.

For example, North Carolina law-makers recently passed legislation against sea level rise. A day later, the Virginia legislature required that references to global warming, climate change and sea level rise be excised from a proposed study on sea level rise. Last year, the Texas Department of Environmental Quality, which had commissioned a study on Galveston Bay, cut all references to sea level rise – the main point of the study.

Common Dreams

That last is a great rant and both are worth the time to read, h/t to Some Assembly Required blog. Just a warning, don't bother reading if you think climate change is a conspiracy to make Gore rich or that DDT was divinely inspired.

I'm simply amazed at the ability of humans to ignore reality, to accept the thing that most fits with their pre-conceived beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is actually too kind, people vehemently, aggressively deny and attack that which makes them uncomfortable, that cramps their knee-jerk reaction.

I'm no logical giant but I think I accept new information and change my outlook based on evidence rather than revelation - of course put that way, I doubt anyone sees themselves as a Flat-Earther.

So are you a skeptic in the scientific, repeatable result sense or are you a sceptic in the "follow your knee" sense?

[AgentR11]

I'd just add a quick thought here, its really worse than just the fiat speak and acceptance; the problem is that much of the science at the forefront now greatly exceeds the capabilities of the reasonably well educated to test.

Old world, science guy, says, I think the surface of the Earth is curved. Young adult climbs the bell tower and watches a sailing ship's mast come up over the horizon followed by the ship, and says, well that explains that. The non super-expert was honestly able, if they wished, to read a scientific result, and put it to the test, directly. After a few pokes, the young guy might simply choose to read the result and accept it, but it isn't blind acceptance, and the result remains completely testable.

Today's science is so extremely specialized, and requires exceptionally powerful tools, such that even the non-skeptics are accepting science results WITHOUT the ability to put them to the test themselves. If the NWS Climate Prediction Center releases model results showing blizzards increasing in Texas, I have absolutely no capability whatsoever to independently put the model to the test. I can accept the result, or not, but it is absolutely acceptance based on faith, no different than Mary Joe following the ramblings of her Hell and Brimstone preaching baptist preacher.

I don't know that there is an answer to this problem; the simple stuff that individuals could test if they wished are mostly done and long accepted by all. That isn't going to change; and without it changing, "appeal to authority" remains what it is, a personality cult basis for believing or rejecting any presented information. Maybe this isn't a problem for the practicing scientist, but if they want scientific results to go from published paper to policy, its a huge problem.

And my hunch... its a problem that will destroy us.

[Lore]

It was no different in the time of Galileo. The schism today is the same as it ever was, only more secular in nature.

[AgentR11]

Well.. we disagree there. The tools to independently test scientific conclusion were within the means of educated individuals to acquire and use, if they wished to do so. Galileo's optics would have been a bit pricey, but on the scale of the cost of a small modern cluster not unlike what I use; once you have the paper, you can choose to acquire the optics, physically look at Jupiter over the course of a month or few, and say, "dang! no s***".

That is simply no longer the case. There is no chance I could ever afford to own or operate a computing system of sufficient power to test the model given as my example.

Of note, I'm not talking about the uneducated rabble here. Though I would assert that they were likely even worse in Galileo's time, but rendered mostly irrelevant as a result of having no political or economic power. For good or ill, the rabble now have power, and no way to independently separate the shill from the science, all that remains is personality cult; and as there are more than enough scientists who's political agendas are contrary to the political agendas of liberal scientists to provide excuse for the rabble to keep doing what is comfortable. We're doomed.

[vision-master]

Old world, science guy, says, I think the surface of the Earth is curved. Young adult climbs the bell tower and watches a sailing ship's mast come up over the horizon followed by the ship, and says, well that explains that. The non super-expert was honestly able, if they wished, to read a scientific result, and put it to the test, directly. After a few pokes, the young guy might simply choose to read the result and accept it, but it isn't blind acceptance, and the result remains completely testable.

Then again, how did the ancients accurately map Antarctica before it was known to exist?


Finé’s 1531 map

In 1820, several expeditions claimed to have been the first to have sighted Antarctica, with the very first being the Russian expedition led by Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Lazarev. The first landing was probably just over a year later when American Captain John Davis, a sealer, set foot on the ice.

[AgentR11]

QED

[vision-master]

No, they were taken off older unknown maps - these maps have since disappeared.

[rockdoc123]

I don't know that there is an answer to this problem; the simple stuff that individuals could test if they wished are mostly done and long accepted by all. That isn't going to change; and without it changing, "appeal to authority" remains what it is, a personality cult basis for believing or rejecting any presented information. Maybe this isn't a problem for the practicing scientist, but if they want scientific results to go from published paper to policy, its a huge problem.

The problem, as I see it, is a very recent (a little over a decade) propensity for scientists to rely exclusively on models as measures of truth rather than observational science. In many cases they ignore observations that disagree with their models...the models must be right ergo there is something wrong with the observations being their modus operandi. This is what makes me a climate sceptic. Unlike many I am an earth scientist and still read extensively in all sorts of related literature simply because I enjoy learning. I get particularly perturbed when I see modeled results published and then portrayed in the press as "the truth", especially when there is data readily available that argues strongly against the modeled outcome. The scientific method seems to have been shelved and I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's the lure of lucrative research funding or egos or something else. Regardless it is a bad direction and is exacerbated by the low scientific literacy that exists throughout the general population, a product I suspect is in part due to school curriculum over the past several decades focusing on topics other than general science. This low level of scientific literacy requires that the average person relies on "appeals to authority" and consequently they often have no way of determining who that authority should be other than swallowing tails of "scientific consensus" and "oil company funding" which are simply political maneuverings.

[kublikhan]

That doesn't sound right rockdoc. I don't doubt there is alot of bad science out there with people playing with models and rejecting data that doesn't fit. But as I understand it, there is also a plethora of empirical evidence suggesting that climate change is real. Now that doesn't mean scientists x's model of climate change is correct. But it suggests to me that there is enough empirical evidence that climate change is real. If you'll forgive this appeal to authority, NASA's climate change website:

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.

Climate change: How do we know?

I also like to read extensively as I enjoy learning. Do you have any recommended reading that supports you position as a climate skeptic?

[vision-master]

I don't know that there is an answer to this problem; the simple stuff that individuals could test if they wished are mostly done and long accepted by all. That isn't going to change; and without it changing, "appeal to authority" remains what it is, a personality cult basis for believing or rejecting any presented information. Maybe this isn't a problem for the practicing scientist, but if they want scientific results to go from published paper to policy, its a huge problem.

The problem, as I see it, is a very recent (a little over a decade) propensity for scientists to rely exclusively on models as measures of truth rather than observational science. In many cases they ignore observations that disagree with their models...the models must be right ergo there is something wrong with the observations being their modus operandi. This is what makes me a climate sceptic. Unlike many I am an earth scientist and still read extensively in all sorts of related literature simply because I enjoy learning. I get particularly perturbed when I see modeled results published and then portrayed in the press as "the truth", especially when there is data readily available that argues strongly against the modeled outcome. The scientific method seems to have been shelved and I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's the lure of lucrative research funding or egos or something else. Regardless it is a bad direction and is exacerbated by the low scientific literacy that exists throughout the general population, a product I suspect is in part due to school curriculum over the past several decades focusing on topics other than general science. This low level of scientific literacy requires that the average person relies on "appeals to authority" and consequently they often have no way of determining who that authority should be other than swallowing tails of "scientific consensus" and "oil company funding" which are simply political maneuverings.

Early scientific method.......
Alchemy is an influential philosophical tradition whose early practitioners’ claims to profound powers were known from antiquity. The defining objectives of alchemy are varied; these include the creation of the fabled philosopher's stone possessing powers including the capability of turning base metals into the noble metals gold or silver, as well as an elixir of life conferring youth and immortality. Western alchemy is recognized as a protoscience that contributed to the development of modern chemistry and medicine. Alchemists developed a framework of theory, terminology, experimental process and basic laboratory techniques that are still recognizable today. But alchemy differs from modern science in the inclusion of Hermetic principles and practices related to mythology, religion, and spirituality.

[vision-master]

That doesn't sound right rockdoc. I don't doubt there is alot of bad science out there with people playing with models and rejecting data that doesn't fit. But as I understand it, there is also a plethora of empirical evidence suggesting that climate change is real. Now that doesn't mean scientists x's model of climate change is correct. But it suggests to me that there is enough empirical evidence that climate change is real. If you'll forgive this appeal to authority, NASA's climate change website:

Evolution?

[dorlomin]

The problem, as I see it, is a very recent (a little over a decade) propensity for scientists to rely exclusively on models as measures of truth rather than observational science. In many cases they ignore observations that disagree with their models...the models must be right ergo there is something wrong with the observations being their modus operandi.

Newtonian gravity and the orbit of Mercury.

A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that its orbit showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless

Centuries of contradiction between the wave and particle nature of light.

Beginning in 1670 and progressing over three decades, Isaac Newton developed and championed his corpuscular hypothesis, arguing that the perfectly straight lines of reflection demonstrated light's particle nature; only particles could travel in such straight lines. He explained refraction by positing that particles of light accelerated laterally upon entering a denser medium. Around the same time, Newton's contemporaries Robert Hooke and Christian Huygens – and later Augustin-Jean Fresnel – mathematically refined the wave viewpoint, showing that if light traveled at different speeds in different media (such as water and air), refraction could be easily explained as the medium-dependent propagation of light waves. The resulting Huygens–Fresnel principle was extremely successful at reproducing light's behavior and, subsequently supported by Thomas Young's discovery of double-slit interference, was the beginning of the end for the particle light camp.[4]

The phlogiston theory to explain why objects were hevier after they were burnt

The phlogiston theory (from the Ancient Greek φλογιστόν phlogistón "burning up", from φλόξ phlóx "flame"), first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, is an obsolete scientific theory that postulated the existence of a fire-like element called "phlogiston", which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The theory was an attempt to explain processes of burning such as combustion and the rusting of metals, which are now collectively known as oxidation.

Dark matter.

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level.[1] Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy.[2]

A yawning gulf between theory and observation has been with us since the begining of science and is still with us.

While I will avoid the instance you provide I will say that gulfs between theories and models are pretty common throughout the history of science and just part of the whole process.

[dinopello]

QED

What is this ? I always think Quantum Electro-Dynamics (Feynman's theory). Based on context, I assume there is another meaning.

I can't believe 50% of MIT students got the answer wrong. I can only think it must be reading comprehension. That's one problem I see all the time - people just don't read or listen carefully to what someone actually said or wrote. Whoever it was that coined the idea that 'he's not listening, he's just waiting for his turn to talk" was on to something.

[kublikhan]

vision-master, last time we discussed science, you had me chasing links to support your view that Nommo aliens built the pyramids with lasers and anti-grav sleds. That is not science. That is a faith based view. The same fire and brimstone stuff Agent was talking about, just with a modern twist. Yet when I pointed you to real scientific work being done to explore the issue of the construction of the pyramids, it did not fit your world view. So you aggressively denied and attacked that which made you uncomfortable, just as Pops mentioned. So this thread fits perfectly for you Of course we have all been guilty of this at one time or another, myself included. But I would hope that we all keep an eye out for this personal bias of ours and try to keep an open mind.

[AgentR11]

quod erat demonstrandum

[dorlomin]

Much of what has made the modern world in general, and the United States in particular, a free and prosperous society comes directly from insights that arose during the Enlightenment.

Too bad we’re chucking it all out and returning to the Dark Ages.

Literally.

Two main things distinguished the post Enlightenment world from the pre Enlightenment Dark Ages.

First, Francis Bacon’s Novo Organum Scientiarum (The New Instrument of Science) introduced a new way of understanding the world, in which empiricism, facts and … well … reality … defined what was real. It essentially outlined the scientific method: observation and data collection, formulation of hypotheses, experiments designed to test hypotheses and elevation of these hypotheses to theories when data consistently supported them. It was and is a system based on skepticism, and a relentless and methodical search for truth.

The public in general has always been out of step with science.

Lavoisier was executed by a former pupil to popular acclaim.

"The Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists; the course of justice cannot be delayed".

Joseph Priestley had his house and notes burnt down by a religious mob.
Charles Darwin was publically mocked for theories of evolution and they were subject to legal challange in the Scopes monkey trial decades later.
Through the 50s, 60s and 70s belief in UFO, ghosts, poltergiests and other supernatural beings was widespread among the west.


At almost any point over the past 300 years I can show you when the popular opinion has held at least some part of science in contempt. Genetic engineering, nuclear energy, stem cell research are among those that have borne the brunt of popular mistrust over the past couple of decades.

[AgentR11]

I can't believe 50% of MIT students got the answer wrong.

I suspect that only the context of how the question was asked caused even that many to get it right. The question itself has no negative consequence for an incorrect result, and no positive consequence for a correct result; thus no reason to even bother thinking about the answer, your brain says "good nuff" and calls it done. Put a $100 fine for getting it wrong, and I'd suspect the MIT kids would universally answer it correctly; because doing it arithmetically guarantees that even a fifth grader will get the answer right.

That's the point of the article. In relation to more complex science with an even more nebulous direct consequence; and its a slam dunk that most everyone will use either System 1 or an appeal to authority. BOTH of which are disastrous in this context. The article, being partisan a bit, seems to think its ok to rely on appeal to authority, as long as it is authorities that the author approves of; but I think this is very short sighted, and can lead to some very bad outcomes; which was the point of my follow up.

As long as appeal to authority is the means; the rabble will choose authorities that they like.

[Fishman]

Er, I had to struggle with the math
A bat and a ball cost 110 cent together and the bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
x + Y = 110, Y= 100 + x. Y=110- x 110-x = 100 +x 2x= 110 - 100 2x = 10 x = 5.

However, the "science " presented at the NC legislature is not quite so algebraic. Its a model, based on data, that had not fit the model so far. My preference is for a bit more data that fits the model, or a model that better represents the data. Asking "are we moving toward a fact-free future" based on ill fitting models, is manipulation of data. Not a fact-free future.

[kublikhan]

It seems to me today's rabble have unprecedented knowledge and power at their finger tips. The internet has allowed people access to a treasure trove of information, facts, etc. And the common desktop computer offers computational power only dreamed of a few decades ago. Not to mention some of the more advanced options out there like Cheap cloud computing, Renting a supercomputer, etc.

How much more well armed is the rabble of today compared to the authority of yesterday?

[Lore]

Er, I had to struggle with the math
A bat and a ball cost 110 cent together and the bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
x + Y = 110, Y= 100 + x. Y=110- x 110-x = 100 +x 2x= 110 - 100 2x = 10 x = 5.

However, the "science " presented at the NC legislature is not quite so algebraic. Its a model, based on data, that had not fit the model so far. My preference is for a bit more data that fits the model, or a model that better represents the data. Asking "are we moving toward a fact-free future" based on ill fitting models, is manipulation of data. Not a fact-free future.

The models have a basis in historical evidence and accepted scientific theory. To ignore them is to ignore those facts. They need not be perfect, as most projections are not, to indicate a reliable certainty as to the outcome.