Oct 07 2010
The Nature of Consensus
Anti-scientific creationist propaganda is always a good source of unintentional irony. Recently at the Disco-Tute’s propaganda blog they posted a piece about scientific consensus, prompted by a recent study on the public reaction to scientific consensus.
The study, by Dan Kahan et al., finds that the public may be sharply divided on factual questions about which the scientific community largely agrees, like evolution, global warming, and nuclear waste. The authors explored the reason for this disconnect and found that members of the public tend to form their beliefs about the existence of a scientific consensus based upon their cultural views.
This certainly reflects common experience – the acceptance or denial of the existence of a scientific consensus on man-made global warming tracks with political ideology. It seems unlikely that individuals are mostly making independent and rational assessments of the scientific evidence, and just happen to be coming up with the conclusion that is favored by the ideological culture in which they are embedded. It is a common conceit, however, that one’s own views are rationally evidence-based, and it is the other side that is ideological.
Of course this is not a symmetrical phenomenon. Some ideologies may have little or no impact on certain scientific questions, while others may have a dominant impact on the same questions. Therefore, on specific issues some ideologies may be more “free” to simply follow the scientific consensus, while others will have a firmly pre-determined bias.
In any case, the relationship between science and consensus is a complex one. I discuss that relationship at length here, and so will not repeat those points. (Do read the other article if you want to delve into that issue further.)
What the current study shows is that when the scientific consensus conflicts with ideological belief, most people will happily reject the consensus. At such times there are readily available excuses for such rejection – scientists are wrong sometimes, scientists are people too and have their own biases, the media is mis-reporting the state of the science, or the scientific community is dominated by conflicts of interest (from government, industry, or professional protectionism).
There is a kernel of truth to all of these accusations, making them all the more powerful as rationalizations. However, often they are invoked ad hoc to justify an ideological belief, rather than in reaction to an independent assessment of the overall impact of such factors on a specific question. Throw in a little confirmation bias – and it’s easy to see how the public can be so polarized over what are essentially empirical questions that should be objectively resolvable.
Of course, the Disco-Tute does not appear to be interested in a fair assessment of scientific consensus. They are an ideological organization, and so need to defend their ad hoc dismissal of scientific consensus whenever it suits their needs. In response to the Kahan study, they write (there is no specific author listed for this article):
Isn’t that special? So if you’re a Darwin doubter it’s not because you’ve thought through the issue for yourself and come to a heterodox conclusion. You’re just a sheep, following what your hick friends and neighbors say.
That statement is intended to be sarcastic, but is actually more ironic, because in a way it is exactly correct. Another possible interpretation is that every evolution denier (or at least most) came to a thoughtful, but horribly wrong, conclusion about the scientific evidence. It is extremely unlikely that independent scientific conclusions would track so closely with religious beliefs and political ideology.
Logically, the other possibility is that it is those who accept the consensus on evolution who are influenced by ideology, while religious conservatives are being scientifically objective. Or maybe the evidence is inconclusive, leaving everyone to follow their biases.
A full discussion of the scientific merits of evolution are beyond this post, so suffice it to say I have written before on aspects of the evidence for evolution and arguments against it. The evidence for the fact of evolution is overwhelming.
This is not just my opinion, it is the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion. But of course, the Disco-tute has an answer for that:
Notice, however, the utter naïveté of the study and report. Basically, Professor Kahan et al. say that people in the general public tend to count a scientist as an expert if that scientist supports the views of the group the individual belongs to. But they treat the scientists themselves as if they aren’t a part of the general public and so don’t have the same bias. Apparently, scientists alone are immune to the bias detected in the study that is otherwise unbiquitous.
The author is missing a major premise of the study, however – that on certain issues the scientific community is united on one conclusion while the public is divided on the same issue. The public is divided because they are generally following their ideology and biases, and the scientific community is united because they are generally following scientific evidence and logic. That is a crucial point – the scientific community is united behind a solid consensus, despite the fact that they do range the spectrum of ideological biases just like the public.
Individual scientists may be biased by their beliefs and ideology, and there are always dissenters and outliers. But science has a process, with rules of logic and evidence. That’s kinda the point of science. And it is reasonable to believe that trained scientists are likely to have a better appreciation for the process of science, and the details of the findings of science, than the general public.
But the Disco-tute would have you believe that the scientific opinions of the average citizen are just as reliable as the consensus of opinion of experts who have spent years or decades studying scientific methodology and their particular fields in great depth and detail.
Of course, they need to perpetuate that notion because their job is to deny well-established science in the name of their particular ideology.
31 Responses to “The Nature of Consensus”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I feel like I’ve said this a bunch lately on another website, but there are no sacred cows. I love to use this quote when someone is presenting any ideology to me. I was posting back and forth with someone who said that ideology springs from objective reasoning, and vice versa; ie a chicken and egg scenario. He was arguing for many republican ideals and against anything left of right, stating that he’s thought about this from an objective standpoint and came to this conclusion. Needless to say, this is where his vice versa came into play. His ideology influenced his reasoning, creating this bias and nullifying the “objective” portion of objective reasoning. The funny part of this is that he attributes his objective reasoning of the past month or so to Glenn Beck’s rally speech on MLK day. Irony runs rampant in the ideologues I think.
Overall this is kind of one of those studies that corroborate what many in skeptical community have said for awhile now. What I like about it though is that I can now point to this study when someone who starts promoting a baseless ideal. I should get the abstract off pubmed …
We all filter our thoughts through our particular ideaology. Even when we try very hard not to. Those who recognize this fact and then allow logic and evidence to change their position are at least living closer to reality. If you are willing to recognize your own faulty thinking and are willing to change a view point in the face of better evidence, you have applied rigor to your thinking. If you have actually changed your view point as a result of that thinking – you are courageous.
That is where the problem lies.
Very few people are that courageous.
I agree that ideology drives many people’s opinions on the existence of a scientific consensus.
However, I genuinely think that most true believers really “think” a lot about the views they have. My whole family are t-b’s and I know from 29 years of experience that they really do think a lot about what they believe. Unfortunately they just don’t know *how* to think; nor do they understand how their ideology affects their thinking.
IMO their cognitive approximation of “reality” is so imbued with their ideology that they just don’t even know it’s there anymore.
The anonymous Disco-Tute’s author’s response to the study shows as much I think. He ostensibly believes that what he’s doing is rigorous, rational thinking.
Excellent post, Steve.
Is there any empirical evidence about the correlation between having a libertarian ideology and being a global warming denier? Anecdotally it seems to exist, but I’m wondering whether there is a proper survey…
I’m a left-libertarian, and I can tell you that there is a strong association between libertarians and global warming denial.
There’s a few that aren’t though, Ronald Bailey of Reason and Megan McArdle of Atlantic Monthly are both libertarians that have accepted AGW. Bailey even goes so far as to support a carbon tax.
I think a layperson rejecting a scientific consensus is possibly the most arrogant act anyone can commit. In any consensus you may have hundreds of people that have sacrificed thousands of hours just for the education, not to mention the actual work. But still, these individuals are a small part of a consensus relative to the social forces. In the scientific community, prestige and success are predicated on contribution and this especially applies to contributions that extirpate anything that’s long-held—the most well-known and celebrated scientists have done exactly this. But still, there are people that barely glance at a consensus and immediately see a fatal flaw which hundreds of highly motivated people couldn’t even begin to fathom after years of study and work. And there taken seriously by the public! How is this any different than a layperson looking at an architectural plan and nonchalantly pointing at something and saying: “Nope, that won’t work.”
The more you do what SARA says above, the less you can identify with ideologies in general. I find that people who strongly identify with a particular ideolgy tend to turn off their critical thinking about the topics that are relevant to their ideology. It becomes just a shortcut to confirmation bias “thinking”. The worst is when an ideology becomes entangled with a person’s self identity. Then even evidence is perceived as a personal attack.
Regarding climate change and libertarianism: It just shows that even people who are known for their critical thinking on certain topics (Penn and Teller) can be blinded by their ideologies.
“I think a layperson rejecting a scientific consensus is possibly the most arrogant act anyone can commit.”
I don’t think that there is that much thought when the average person doubts scientific consensus. I think that for the most part, people are not aware that there is a consensus (or even aware of what the science is at all). They see mixed media coverage and think that there is some disagreement, and go with the one that fits their ideology.
I think the real problem here is a societal lack of appreciation of what science is, what is does, and what it can/can’t accomplish. The relationship between the scientific process and scientific progress is not understood, and this is a problem.
ccbowers, I agree but I’d still say that’s arrogance, albeit, compacted by profound ignorance. For instance, I know little about art and I wouldn’t dare criticize cubism simply because I don’t like it. I could be discounting a multitude of factors of which I’m not aware.
Excellent article (as usual), Steve. Thanks.
siodine-
I guess I view ignorance as the major factor (versus arrogance) for most people. I agree that there is certainly some intellectual hubris among the intelligent deniers (Penn and Teller, Bill Maher, Jerry Fodor), but I don’t think that the average denier does so bescause he or she thinks that they are more intelligent.
ccbowers, I think arrogance is a function of ignorance. It’s even defined as an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities. Consequently, I think it would be difficult for a sane person to exaggerate their importance or abilities while knowing how unimportant or unable they actually are. The dunning-kruger effect is a perfect example of this.
Arrogance can be a function of ignorance, but they are not necessarily related. I think that definition of arrogance can fall apart if a person really is better than everyone else at a given task. Even if they are correct in their assessment, it can be arrogant to talk about ones one abilities even accurately. E.g., if Michael Phelps talked on and on about how great a swimmer he was, after about 2 minutes of listening to that people would walk away concluding that he was an arrogant.
Also, sometimes ignorance is ignorance alone… and this can be treated with acquiring knowledge. We have all (hopefully) changed our minds about something in our lives, because we didnt have sufficient knowledge on a subject but didnt know it. We may have even felt fairly certain that we were correct prior to learning that we weren’t. I would not describe that as being arrogant. If we were unreasonably resistant to considering that we were wrong… this would be arrogance. Perhaps some of these people just havent come across good information in a way that reached them.
When Michael Phelps talks on about his greatness as a swimmer, his lack of polished speaking skills places him as less arrogant rather than more. He has stated that his ADHD forced him to use the sport of swimming to focus his attention for daily activities.
Now, I would say that Dr. Mark Spitz can appear more arrogant because he is erudite and masterful as a swimmer.
I just made up that Michael Phelps thing as an example… I didnt know that was even a perception.
ccbowers-I really liked your distinction between ignorance and arrogance. I agree that sometimes they come together to make someone unreasonably resistant to new information,but they don’t necessarily go together. Sometimes we just don’t know what we don’t know.That goes for everyone.
“I think that definition of arrogance can fall apart if a person really is better than everyone else at a given task.”
Then they wouldn’t have an exaggerated sense of self.
Your Micheal Phelps example is boastful not arrogant.
“I would not describe that as being arrogant.”
Neither would I; that person is neither exaggerated in abilities or importance but knowledge. If they tried to apply that knowledge without humility, then I think that would show an exaggeration of abilities.
“Sometimes we just don’t know what we don’t know.That goes for everyone.”
Give us an example of someone that doesn’t know what they don’t know, and flaunts what they believe they know (because they’re right), and still isn’t arrogant.
“because they’re right” should be “because they’re certain they’re right.”
siodine-
You are failing to make a point here.
“Give us an example of someone that doesn’t know what they don’t know, and flaunts what they believe they know (because they’re right), and still isn’t arrogant.”
Your use of the word ‘flaunt’ is a loaded one, but I will leave that alone. You can’t think of your own example? This is not hard. I will avoid a healthcare example because that is my default line of thinking, but here is one:
Lets say you are going to buy a pair of headphones. You want noise canceling, bluetooth headphones and you go to an electronics store and the sale person shows you headphones ‘A,’ and tells you that “these are the only ones on the market right now. The other headphones avaiable are either Bluetooth or noise canceling but not both.”
Now lets suppose that he is wrong, and that last month a new product ‘B’ came out that he was not aware of. 1. He is not arrogant 2. He is ignorant of that fact
“You are failing to make a point here.”
Your use of “here” is ambiguous, do you mean the my request for an example from tmac57 or a certain post?
Also, your example doesn’t take into account my use of ‘flaunt’. If you don’t like that word, substitute it with ‘show off’ or ‘display proudly’.
siodine-What exactly is the point of asking the question the way you did? My point (and ccbowers,I assume), is that people can be wrong about something because the don’t have all the facts, without being arrogant too. Do you have a problem with that?
My point has always been in my first post. ccbowers didn’t agree with part of it, and I think his reason for disagreeing with it isn’t valid (that people denying a scientific consensus aren’t typically arrogant, but mainly ignorant). I say their arrogant because their ignorant–arrogance is a function of ignorance.
People can be wrong about something because they don’t have all the facts, and without being arrogant. But if that’s all you mean to say, then it’s entirely tangential.
I disagree with it because it is not correct. There are certain issues that much more common for people to disagree with the consensus, and they are ones that interfere with peoples’ ideologies (versus interfere with their intellectual studies). When I say ideology I mean a quasi-intellectual but mostly emotional commitment that interferes with critical thinking because it is viewed as essential to a person’s world view and identity.
This is why certain topics (evolution, climate change, etc) are more likely to be rejected than others. This has nothing to do with the hubris of the general population on their knowledge of those topics. It has everything to do with their religion or ideology and how those topics are percieved as threats on an emotional level… so these are rationalized as being incorrect.
I don’t see the rejection of consensus (by the general public) to be related to any intellectual hubris at all, because most people aren’t basing their ‘belief’ on their (even perceived) mastery of the subject.
ccbowers – I agree with you that people base their conclusions on ideology and emotion, not their perceived expertise. However, they justify those conclusions with either a direct or implied claim about their relative expertise.
The point is – they should generally reject their own ideological opinions in favor of a scientific consensus out of a proper respect for a solid consensus and a proper humility about the limits of their own knowledge. Failure to do so, however motivated, is hubris.
It is also partly the arrogance of ignorance – being ignorant of one’s own ignorance, ignorant of the state of the science and the nature of the current consensus, and the size of the gap between casual public knowledge and expert knowledge on a subject.
But it’s hard to get away from the need for some arrogance or hubris in setting aside a scientific consensus in favor of one’s own opinion.
I think you will never reach people if you wrongly assume that intellectual hubris is the problem for the generaly population. This is certainly the primary case with the activists of the deniers, but in the general population this is not the case. There is an important distinction to be made between hubris and not respecting (or trusting) experts for ideological reasons. Most people are not logically weighing evidence with these topics (if they were then arrogance would certainly be the cause).
Coincidentally, the most recent ‘rationally speaking’ podcast talks about this in a way that I think is related to what I am trying to convey here (from 10/10/10). I’m not saying that arrogance doesn’t play a role… its actually very important for these movements. But for the average person, there is a cognitive dissonance related to self identity which drives ‘belief’ that has nothing to do with weighing evidence, because most people (unfortunately) don’t think that way with these topics.
If we are talking about the people who like to run their mouths about things that they don’t know about, then I agree with the hubris part. I am thinking of the average person filling out a survey about these questions who is just weighing what he/she hears on TV/radio with their own perspective on the world.
It is not hubris because they are likely buying into a conspiracy line of thinking as a way of rationalizing their belief (or some other rationalization). This is reinforced by fake ‘experts’ and talk show hosts in the media who make the non-consensus perspective seem reasonable.
Maybe i should try to tie it all together as I see it: There are certain people who are aware of a given consensus, and reject this consensus for various reasons (ideological commitments, not really understanding the topic, attempting to make a name for themselves, etc). These people can be correctly described as having a problem related to ignorance and arrogance.
The problem arises when this uninformed, nonconsenus view reaches a critical mass in exposure/popularity (generally some of these people have access to media), and a public but artificial ‘controversy’ is created. Once this happens, the general public has difficulty discerning the artificial controversy from a real intellectual one due to their own ignorance and own biases (among other factors). From their perpective either argument is potentially valid and on average they will tend to cling to the one that suits their worldview. From this perspective, I do not see intellectual arrogance as the major factor for the rejection of a consensus view for certain aspects of the general public.
I do find the correlation between one’s political and/or religious views and acceptance of scientific consensus interesting (but not surprising).
Some aspects of science are demonstrated experimentally, others are not. It is not surprising that there is disagreement in those areas with the least experimental support.
I find it odd, however, that there seems to be an idea that the authors at the Discovery Institute deny evolution– because they don’t. (intelligent design is a theory of evolution, not a denial of it.)
Is the denial of their acceptance of evolution based on arrogance, ignorance or hubris? (Or is this possibly a false dilemma?)
“intelligent design is a theory of evolution, not a denial of it.”
Lets assume that you are correct in theory, in practice is more about denialism.
I can’t agree, Sonic. For many, if not most, of the DiscoTute’s followers, this is really about creationism, and ID is just a facet of their broader creationist beliefs. I think the same goes for the DiscoTute themselves. ID represents a convenient tool, the infamous wedge that they thought they could use to get creationism (and more) into schools. Some of their members came from backgrounds that strongly suggest they were, and probably still are, YE or OE creationists. Some of them occasionally slip and let their true colors show; I wish I could remember the details, but the most recent example I recall was one of their big guns arguing against some evidence for common descent, something they should have no problem with. And all of them are driven by a strong religious faith and ideology, which is practically the definition of creationism when applied to a theory of biological change…which would make ID inherently another form of creationism.
I used to think as you did, but over time I’ve changed my mind. Yeah, ID would still be nuts and worth fighting regardless, so in some ways it doesn’t matter. Still, I think it’s a little surprising, and at least worth pointing out when they try to pretend religion has nothing to do with it. Very often, and I think more often than not when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, these guys really ARE cdesignproponentsists.