People, scientists included, since most of them are also people, are good at finding evidence for desirable propositions.
If you want to discover reasons why the earth is really flat, and not spherical, you’ll uncover lots of juicy stuff about why our rulers want us to believe in Old Roundy. What you’ll especially find are a host of counter-arguments to the obvious arguments against a flat earth. Flat-earthers have an answer for every objection you can come up with—short of launching them into space so they can see for themselves, that is. But even then, the true believers would discover reasons why their flight was faked, somehow.
I pick on these people, and almost all of them I like very much, only to prove the point. Finding evidence for what you want to believe is easy. (And if you’re inclined to laugh at them, I have just one question for you, did you voluntarily wear a mask during the covid panic? Incidentally, we also see this behavior in those cheering for “their” side in the latest foreign war: they lap up good “news” for their side, and dismiss with contempt all that coming from the other.)
It’s even easier for scientists who, some of them anyway, are at least modestly intelligent. At least they have had training that shows them how to find evidence, which is their job. Most of this, sadly, involves formulaic reasoning and conformity following. Even so, the point remains: your intellect can only be described as medically stunted if you cannot conjure up arguments for what you want to believe. Everyone not broken can do it.
Real intelligence arrives, however, when you learn how to find evidence which disproves what you want to believe.
Most are terrible at this, scientists are marginally better, or used to be before DIE sucked the life force from them.
I asked on Twitter if they still taught debate by having people take positions they didn’t agree with, and were thus forced to steelman (as opposed to strawman) positions they disagreed with. I didn’t get many responses, so maybe you know. I find it hard to believe the technique survives since the arrival of Feelings, Diversity, and suchlike. One fellow said the only thing they teach now was to talk really fast so opponents don’t have time to rebut all points. That I believe.
St Thomas Aquinas wrote Summa Theologica using the steelman formula. He’d list the best arguments against his position, state his opposition, and then, with the skills of a world class roboticist, he’d dissect the steelman and leave him in quivering, malfunctioning pieces on the floor.
As I said, science used to be that way, too. Scientists took great delight at eviscerating the arguments of their enemies. Nothing pleased them more (after winning an award, that is) than exposing the flaws of others. Even when I was in graduate school in the 1990s, it was still a thing to have some seminar audience member spout at the speaker, “That equation is wrong.” This was the masculine adversarial procedure applied to science. It worked.
Then came Feelings and Consensus. Would anybody today dare point out, openly, a flaw in the job talk of a Diverse Non-male? Maybe it still happens. Let us know.
Which brings us to a talk recommened by Marc Andreessen, from Dan Kahan. He showed this set of data to a bunch of people (this is a poor screen grab, I know, but good enough to make out):
Regular readers will have figured out the correct answer. It won’t be any surprise to learn, as Kahan says, that the more numerate (on some crude scale he had) people were, the more likely they were to get this. Same if he reversed the column labels. Meaning whether or not people got it right, it had nothing to do with skin cream working or failing per se.
In a clever move, he used the same table with different legends. He replaced skin cream with gun bans. Instead of “Patients who did use the new skin cream” in the first row, it was “Cities that did ban carrying concealed handguns in public”, and the obvious for the second row. Instead of “Rash got better”, it was “Decrease in crime” for the first column; or instead of “Rash got worse” it was “Increase in crime” for the first column.
The twist was he also separated out self-identified Democrats and Republicans. That had no play with the skin cream, but it did with the gun ban question. Lefties were more likely to get the question wrong when the correct answer was crime increases with a gun ban, and righties were more likely to get the answer wrong when the correct answer was crime decreases with a gun ban. Even if they were highly numerate.
Kahan said this was because political motivations can cause bias, and he is surely right about that. But I wonder how right.
The skin cream question was no more than skin deep (feel free to laugh! only the NSA, Mossad, the FBI, Facebook, Apple and Ford Motor Company are listening). Unless you’re in the pharmaceutical business, the question doesn’t elicit a lot of emotion or open up a host of other questions. So you stay on target.
There are, however, many emotions and questions surrounding gun bans. It’s easy to see why people would let these spurious matters (in the context of the table) distract them from the simple math of the problem. This far I am an agreement with Kahan.
But then he asked participants in his study, “How much risk do you believe global warming pose to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
It will be no surprise that Ds and Rs split here, too. But here Kahan has no table with the pre-computed right answers. Yet he does in the talk suggest that the right answer is the side taken by The Consensus, as issued from agencies such as the National Academy of Sciences.
That isn’t crazy. If you knew nothing about the thermodynamics of fluid flow on a differentially heated rotating sphere, it is natural and rational to look to Experts. Until, alas, we learn those Experts are not up to the job asked of them, as you and I have, dear readers, over many years (blog/Substack). Here Kahan could be guilty of his own bias. He either hasn’t taken seriously criticisms of Experts, or he considers those criticisms unworthy of exploration.
He hasn’t asked a good question, either. It has three parts: health, safety, or prosperity. Which of these is anybody answering? Are all three of equal risk?
Obviously not. And here, unlike the gun question, the outside matters become the real question. Because as I have long said, when some of us hear “climate change” we do not hear physics, but hear the motivations behind rulers wanting to sell “solutions” to “climate change”. The two are entirely different. You can agree about the physics (which I do not), but that physics in no way implies anything about the consequences or mitigation possibilities of the physics. To conflate the two is scientism.
The problem of Consensus is that when it become institutionalized, it becomes increasingly difficult to question. The scientists in it forget how to look for evidence which disproves their theories. They are certainly not encouraged to. And, in fact, often punished when they do.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
Most (everyday) “Round Earthers” believe the Earth is round because someone told them it was round. They come up with terrible reasons for round Earth and worst of all, act like it is self-evident that the Earth is round. For most people, most of the time, the Earth is functionally flat. The roundness of the Earth is absolutely not self-evident.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe the Earth is flat and I think most of the flat earthers are being cheeky and don’t really believe it. There are plenty of very good proofs the Earth is actually round. But just because the conclusion is true doesn’t mean the premise is. One person “refuting” flat earth theory believed satellites prove the Earth is round.
1 – ok, I’m confused. The numbers shown say that people using it were nearly 3 times more likely to say it helped, but also over five times more likely to see the rash as getting worse (223 107÷426)÷(75 21 ÷ 426) = 2.97 5.09. So the right answer is that the numbers support both conclusions, but then you say he got the same results if he reversed the column headings –> implying one correct choice obvious to the numerati .
2 – Cognitive dissonance as defined by Festinger et al is a protective mechanism whose function is to keep the mind open to information contrary to belief. When it fails the person becomes increasingly committed to eschewing contrary information while searching out confirmatory opinion – in the limit this leads to Jonestown and the holodomor because it lets people like Mao, Stalin, Obama, and the rest of the progressive pantheon of heros manipulate their followers into doing things they would normally consider utterly and unthinkably insane while acting, in all other respects, like perfectly normal people. The slipprey slope here is different for different people but a minority, once launched down the metaphorical hill, cannot stop – and that’s what we’re seeing with the worst of the democrats today.
And hast thou slain the jabberwock?
I don’t remember much about my high school geometry class, other than it was all proofs, all the time. The teacher would draw a geometric figure on the chalkboard, with a challenge like “prove that line segment ab is the same length as line segment fg”, or “prove that angle abc is equal to angle efg”. Invariably it looked like the statement was true, as the teacher took pains to draw it carefully. The only day of geometry class I actually remember was the one where we had a substitute teacher. The whole class period was proofs, like always. But this teacher purposely drew the geometric figure so it looked like the statement was false. As he went through the proof, he would redraw the figure when forced to, like “ok, this angle here has to be a right angle”, but he would retain the misdrawn portions as long as he could. This approach has served me well on many occasions, on problems far afield of geometry.
Paul Murphy: “The numbers shown say that people using it were nearly 3 times more likely to say it helped, but also over five times more likely to see the rash as getting worse (223 107÷426)÷(75 21 ÷ 426) = 2.97 5.09. So the right answer is that the numbers support both conclusions”
Express it as a ratio of worse to better in both groups: 75:223 and 21:107, or percentage worse from total: 75/(223+75) and 21/(107+21) If you do that, then 75/298 = .252 (25.2%), while 21/128 = 0.164 (16.4%). So, a larger percentage of the two populations had the rash get worse with the skin cream.
Tars Tarkas: “One person “refuting” flat earth theory believed satellites prove the Earth is round.”
Well, the existence of satellites isn’t irrelevant, because with the totality of the Einsteinian and Newtonian based explanations for a round Earth, we have an explanation for why satellites stay up in the sky and behave the way they do.
I’ve never heard of a flat-Earth theory that provides a plausible explanation for the paths and movements of “orbiting” objects. I guess a flat-earth proponent would say they’re not orbiting, per se, but, I dunno, hanging up there in the whatever’s-up-there? But why do they move the way they do, hanging up there? If you try to plot 3-D orbits around a round Earth on a flat, bounded map (stuff can’t just disappear off one side and instantaneously appear on the other), they look crazy and in many cases, probably impossible.
I recently heard a flat-Earther say that photos from space of a spherical Earth were taken with a distorting lens that just makes it look round. Yep, they’ve got an answer for everything. If you sent one into space, he’d claim the glass in the spacecraft’s windows or the plastic of his helmet’s visor were purposely distorted to trick him into thinking he was looking at a sphere.
This is probably irrelevant. But do experts frequently cook interpretations/conclusions to coincide with their bias?
I spent the last day reading a long article from 13 years ago by Edward Feser on the Cosmological Proof for a creator. In it he reviews several well known scientists and their interpretation of the evidence. Nothing as clear as “rash got better” and “rash got worse” but nevertheless the information/evidence in this debate is understandable and should lead one to an informed decision. But it doesn’t. The most common result is to argue against the apparent conclusion.
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
So what we have for Feser’s article and in this OP is a tendency to cook the results or logic to coincide with one’s bias.
Aside: There is no basis for atheism and agnosticism in logic or evidence but yet it is intellectually proper to endorse either one or the other as an accepted position. But one is a kook if you endorse a theistic position. How many research positions are there that have the same dynamics operating. Obviously, climate is one. One has to just watch the presidential candidates to know what they are.
Briggs gibes: “People, scientists included, since most of them are also people…”
Wise guy. I agree with your thesis -> we find facts to support our stupid desires. I’ve done that. Briggs has done that too. That’s partly how he knows about it. That said maybe the earth is flat. Maybe it’s a ball. How would I know? Oh sure, the important authorities assure me it’s spherical. Even Briggs bangs on about his physics of fluid dynamics differential whatnots on a rotating sphere. But what I do know, and that you know as well, is that worldly power depends on moving masses of people with big lies. And people seem to like their lies. And we’ve seen quite a few lately. Wearing a mask prevents viral respiratory infection. The v’axe is safe and effective. Six million. We’re the Good Guys. Har-de-har. A little skepticism is in order, and employing one’s brain in a critical fashion, as God designed it, is always in style.
It’s a fun challenge engaging arguments without knee jerks. Science! The flatsies have some interesting points. A couple off the top of my shallow mind — so we’re on a spinning ball going about a thousand mph, serious centrifugal force, and the only reason we don’t go flying off is gravity, baby. Fine. But that’s at the equator; at the supposed poles there’s negligible centrifugal force and yet somehow “gravity” exerts the exact same force it does at the equator. Shouldn’t a man be significantly lighter at the poles? And then we know that water seeks its own level – flat – and yet on the supposed sphere it’s not flat, but curved. Interesting. I know, Einsteinian bowling balls on curved space-time trampoline. Fine. Maybe. And maybe Einstein is full of shit.
Point is, I’m old enough to have seen a fair amount of nonsense come over the transome. You know what I mean. So now I’m not so quick to join the latest parade. Maybe the earth is spherical. Maybe it’s flat. I haven’t looked into that deeply. But it looks flat to me. I see no thousand-mile-an-hour rotation. I don’t care that PBS says I’m a moron. How come we never went back to the moon? Isn’t that weird? I don’t even care if Briggs calls it a fluid dynamic rotating ball-busting Lindsey rig. Even if it does catch walleye. Dude could be wrong. Briggs might be full of shit. Usually he’s not. Just sayin’.
Hagfish Bagpipe: “And then we know that water seeks its own level – flat – and yet on the supposed sphere it’s not flat, but curved”
Water doesn’t seek its own level. That’s an effect entirely dependent on the forces acting on it. Think about it: In a weightless environment, there’s no “level” for it to seek.. Water let loose on the ISS just floats around in blobs* only held together by the water’s cohesion and surface tension. On the surface of a globe with noticeable gravity, the water doesn’t “seek its own level,” its mass is pulled toward the center of the Earth. That’s why it flows into low spaces — they’re closer, relatively, to the center of the Earth. If you put water in an upright, open U-shaped tube, it will appear to seek its own level, because the forces of gravity are acting equally on all parts of the water, preventing one part of the water from sitting higher, relative to the center of the Earth, than the other. Only by closing off one or both of the ends, preventing the water from moving freely or allowing vacuum pressure to keep water in the higher end can you cause it to be off level.
*There’s still gravity on the ISS, but it is in constant freefall as it orbits, with the force of gravity balanced by its velocity. The balance constantly has to be maintained or its orbit will become unstable and it will either fall to earth or (were it accelerated a lot more) would fly off into space.
Cloudbuster:
Of course, but also no. Remember the choices offered: a) users get worse; b) users get better. As Briggs would point out the question as asked embeds numerous unstated assumptions you get to fill in as you go. Assume you have herpes on your inner thigh.. (yikes!).. and you believe the numbers given are representative of your likely experience. You’d use the cream, right? because the incremental risk is only about 14% and the value of having it abate is very high.
Both answers are supported by the numbers as given because there’s no contextual info – and they show both that (a) it often works; but (b) sometimes makes things worse.
Medicine in real life is always a cost/benefit calculation. What works for person a might kill person b, in other words. Now add in that everything is contingent and what we (and the doctor) doesn’t know greatly exceeds what we (and the doctor) do know. Most of the time, that won’t matter. When it does, well, the doctor gets sued and the lawyers make bank; exploiting emotions along the way.
Paul: No, the evidence doesn’t support your proposition. The only way it supports that proposition is if you invent facts not in evidence. That’s not support. As someone once said, I can explain it to you, but I can’t make you understand. There is zero evidence the cream helps when its efficacy rate is lower than the control group. That’s indicative of a negative effect. The best you can say with any confidence is, “it doesn’t always do any harm.”
Also, to respond to this part: “Assume you have herpes on your inner thigh.. (yikes!).. and you believe the numbers given are representative of your likely experience. You’d use the cream, right? because the incremental risk is only about 14% and the value of having it abate is very high.”
No! I wouldn’t use the cream, because the abatement rate, as you put it, is higher for those who don’t use the cream.