The trouble with trusting complex science

There is no simple way to battle public hostility to climate research. As the psychologists show, facts barely sway us anyway

There is one question that no one who denies manmade climate change wants to answer: what would it take to persuade you? In most cases the answer seems to be nothing. No level of evidence can shake the growing belief that climate science is a giant conspiracy codded up by boffins and governments to tax and control us. The new study by the Met Office, which paints an even grimmer picture than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will do nothing to change this view.
The attack on climate scientists is now widening to an all-out war on science. Writing recently for the Telegraph, the columnist Gerald Warner dismissed scientists as "white-coated prima donnas and narcissists … pointy-heads in lab coats [who] have reassumed the role of mad cranks … The public is no longer in awe of scientists. Like squabbling evangelical churches in the 19th century, they can form as many schismatic sects as they like, nobody is listening to them any more."
Views like this can be explained partly as the revenge of the humanities students. There is scarcely an editor or executive in any major media company – and precious few journalists – with a science degree, yet everyone knows that the anoraks are taking over the world. But the problem is compounded by complexity. Arthur C Clarke remarked that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". He might have added that any sufficiently advanced expertise is indistinguishable from gobbledegook. Scientific specialisation is now so extreme that even people studying neighbouring subjects within the same discipline can no longer understand each other. The detail of modern science is incomprehensible to almost everyone, which means that we have to take what scientists say on trust. Yet science tells us to trust nothing, to believe only what can be demonstrated. This contradiction is fatal to public confidence.
Distrust has been multiplied by the publishers of scientific journals, whose monopolistic practices make the supermarkets look like angels, and which are long overdue for a referral to the Competition Commission. They pay nothing for most of the material they publish, yet, unless you are attached to an academic institute, they'll charge you £20 or more for access to a single article. In some cases they charge libraries tens of thousands for an annual subscription. If scientists want people at least to try to understand their work, they should raise a full-scale revolt against the journals that publish them. It is no longer acceptable for the guardians of knowledge to behave like 19th-century gamekeepers, chasing the proles out of the grand estates.
But there's a deeper suspicion here as well. Popular mythology – from Faust through Frankenstein to Dr No – casts scientists as sinister schemers, harnessing the dark arts to further their diabolical powers. Sometimes this isn't far from the truth. Some use their genius to weaponise anthrax for the US and Russian governments. Some isolate terminator genes for biotech companies, to prevent farmers from saving their own seed. Some lend their names to articles ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies, which mislead doctors about the drugs they sell. Until there is a global code of practice or a Hippocratic oath binding scientists to do no harm, the reputation of science will be dragged through the dirt by researchers who devise new means of hurting us.
Yesterday in the Guardian Peter Preston called for a prophet to lead us out of the wilderness. "We need one passionate, persuasive scientist who can connect and convince … We need to be taught to believe by a true believer." Would it work? No. Look at the hatred and derision the passionate and persuasive Al Gore attracts. The problem is not only that most climate scientists can speak no recognisable human language, but also the expectation that people are amenable to persuasion.
In 2008 the Washington Post summarised recent psychological research on misinformation. This shows that in some cases debunking a false story can increase the number of people who believe it. In one study, 34% of conservatives who were told about the Bush government's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were inclined to believe them. But among those who were shown that the government's claims were later comprehensively refuted by the Duelfer report, 64% ended up believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
There's a possible explanation in an article published by Nature in January. It shows that people tend to "take their cue about what they should feel, and hence believe, from the cheers and boos of the home crowd". Those who see themselves as individualists and those who respect authority, for instance, "tend to dismiss evidence of environmental risks, because the widespread acceptance of such evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce and industry, activities they admire". Those with more egalitarian values are "more inclined to believe that such activities pose unacceptable risks and should be restricted".
These divisions, researchers have found, are better at explaining different responses to information than any other factor. Our ideological filters encourage us to interpret new evidence in ways that reinforce our beliefs. "As a result, groups with opposing values often become more polarised, not less, when exposed to scientifically sound information." The conservatives in the Iraq experiment might have reacted against something they associated with the Duelfer report, rather than the information it contained.
While this analysis rings true, the description of where the dividing line lies isn't quite right. It doesn't describe the odd position in which I find myself. Despite my iconoclastic, anti-corporate instincts, I spend much of my time defending the scientific establishment from attacks by the kind of rabble-rousers with whom I usually associate. My heart rebels against this project: I would rather be pelting scientists with eggs than trying to understand their datasets. But my beliefs oblige me to try to make sense of the science and to explain its implications. This turns out to be the most divisive project I've ever engaged in. The more I stick to the facts, the more virulent the abuse becomes.
This doesn't bother me – I have a hide like a glyptodon – but it reinforces the disturbing possibility that nothing works. The research discussed in the Nature paper shows that when scientists dress soberly, shave off their beards and give their papers conservative titles, they can reach to the other side. But in doing so they will surely alienate people who would otherwise be inclined to trust them. As the MMR saga shows, people who mistrust authority are just as likely to kick against science as those who respect it.
Perhaps we have to accept that there is no simple solution to public disbelief in science. The battle over climate change suggests that the more clearly you spell the problem out, the more you turn people away. If they don't want to know, nothing and no one will reach them. There goes my life's work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...change-science

Found this to be a interesting, the Nature artilce linked within the piece is alos a good read.

Demonstrates how the medieval mindset can thrive today, as people’s prejudices are based upon their up bringing/ belief structures etc. which can be equally applied to a myriad of topics

We watch that very mindset play out right here in Koidville daily.

__________________














AmKon T&C Version 3.0
reeducate the seal©fixt™

What do you think of the article yourself Hobbit? EDIT: OK I saw your new post.

He's trying to link Climate Change with all of science, and say if you disagree with MMCC you're unscientific or a paranoid luddite. In fact there's *plenty* of scientists who disagree with MMCC. They've publically challenged Gore.

I can debunk this article in six words: Industrial Hemp, Industrial Hemp, Industrial Hemp. It could solve most climate problems in a decade.

***The same people who are fapping about the problems are sitting on the solution.***

It's why I can't stand a lot of Guardian columists, but it's good to know what the other side is writing. Monbiot is either a bloody moron or a liar.

yep science is not really the prusuit of knowledge but more and more so the pursuit of money /power within the mutli national complexes

have to go - Ill get back to you

Science: The abstract art, nothing wrong with that.

The Modern Science Establishment is the problem.

Science has just been temporarily highjacked.

*

Notice how they don't say global warmng any more since their conferences go snowed out

Of course this makes sense.

Like CT theories?

__________________

Absolutely true. The fact that people argue religion vs science is testament to this. They are two completely different animals and yet are often portrayed to be two belief systems which people must choose between (like Christianity and Islam) which is a total fallacy.

I didn't see the problem with funding come up in the article but it is one of the most powerful influences which can easily discredit science and scientific endeavors in the end. Global warming had two camps paying their own scientists who would skew their findings so they would continue to get funding. Whadday gonna do?

Great quote. Great man.

__________________
"I'm not altogether on anybody's side because no one is altogether on my side."
Treebeard, The Two Towers

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Bilbo Baggins, J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of The Ring

EssentialOilsTM Essentially, Essential.

So freaking true. I can think of a few CTers who blame every problem in the world on a single conspiracy theory.

__________________
"I'm not altogether on anybody's side because no one is altogether on my side."
Treebeard, The Two Towers

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Bilbo Baggins, J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of The Ring

EssentialOilsTM Essentially, Essential.

"It's a conspiracy."

"What's a conspiracy?"

"Everything."

__________________

For all of our science....are we any more evolved or enlightened?

__________________
Source A Exposed!
Source A Update
A litany of lies
Richard Theilmann – Stolen Valor
Open Minds forum and the FBI
Richard Theilmann & The Naval Order
R. Theilmann’s Family Weigh In

Not one iota.

- Albert Einstein

__________________
"I'm not altogether on anybody's side because no one is altogether on my side."
Treebeard, The Two Towers

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Bilbo Baggins, J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of The Ring

EssentialOilsTM Essentially, Essential.

You have much better understanding of the whole alternative energy agenda than myself and I would agree whole heartedly on the industrial hemp.

As to global warming I have to admit a prejudice – the amount of spin and unscientific reporting (never mind the recent charade over e-mails) puts me on the defensive. Ordinary everyday experience shows no evidence of any global warming (although I realise that this is daft and possibly short sighted). Together with the knowledge that the planet has gone through various climatic changes places me as somewhat sceptical.

The fact that I myself will not be affected also reduces any anxiety that would otherwise arise.

Consequently I don’t really give shit about climate change.

This is why the articles interested me as I know that I am not giving the topic the due consideration that it deserves.

Nevertheless whether or not we are responsible for climate change, we still have a duty of responsibility to the planet. We pollute too much, destroy too much and don’t care whether it effects environments or the people and animals that live there and all of this is done for profit, which is really the problem.

Science has made us what we are today although again science has been manipulated and fed to us in ways that undermines it. But it remains crazy that so many people today fear it or deny it.

Still I will always have more time for a scientific opinion than that of a politician or religious one.

Egg

Arthur C Clarke -was a one man I always looked up to he was that respected and progressive scientist of my youth, however he does like young boys which put a dampener on any respect I had for the man

Definitely. Just because I think Gore etc are wrong it doesn't mean I think it's all fine. I just think we can tackle the problems over a couple of decades without alarmism.

*

@Mur,

I think our problems are social, not scientific...

Hobbit, is his interest in young boys purely scientific? Oh well.... another person I've respected goes down the drain.

__________________
"I'm not altogether on anybody's side because no one is altogether on my side."
Treebeard, The Two Towers

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Bilbo Baggins, J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of The Ring

EssentialOilsTM Essentially, Essential.

Climate change is undoubtedly real. That it is catastrophically abetted by human negligence in husbanding the Gaia is also undeniable. Earth First.

__________________














AmKon T&C Version 3.0
reeducate the seal©fixt™

God damn kiddy diddlers

__________________

Peace is a lie; there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.

I have a "dangerous pussy", nevermind the Force
I survived Apeci...May 2009

No, it's too bogged down by facts and lacks the imagination to see beyond what can only be proven and re-proven.

__________________
R.I.P. IEF...

Agreed.

Definitely agreed. Whether or not climate change is real, man-made, caused by natural forces like volcanoes or some solar or galactic magnetic force, who cares. We are polluting the shit out of this planet. Even if there is no climate change and even if you could give a damn about the planet or the flora and fauna of the planet we are polluting ever stream, river, lake and ocean, the air, the top soil, etc and anon. We're killing any chance we have for future generations to live a normal life.

__________________
"I'm not altogether on anybody's side because no one is altogether on my side."
Treebeard, The Two Towers

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Bilbo Baggins, J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of The Ring

EssentialOilsTM Essentially, Essential.

The science is there but certainly we're free to reject it. But what we can't reject is our own communal sense of foreboding- our sense of Gaia in pain. And so the truth may be, as in all things, more a matter of poetry than reason.

__________________














AmKon T&C Version 3.0
reeducate the seal©fixt™