tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/sceptics-27282/articlessceptics – The Conversation2020-04-02T15:56:38Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1352682020-04-02T15:56:38Z2020-04-02T15:56:38ZA strange paradox: the better we manage to contain the coronavirus pandemic, the less we will learn from it<p>Every prophet of doom, unless he also happens to be a psychopath, hopes that his predictions will not be borne out. This is also true for the epidemiologists and virologists who have been warning the world since January that the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus poses a severe threat to public health around the world. Since then, these pessimists have been butting heads with a group of sceptics or “minimalists”, who have reassured us that there is nothing to worry about: the panic is more dangerous than the virus, the mortality rate of COVID-19 has been severely inflated, and besides, the flu also <a href="https://www.who.int/influenza/surveillance_monitoring/bod/FAQsInfluenzaMortalityEstimate.pdf?ua=1">kills hundreds of thousands every year</a> – so why make all this fuss?</p>
<p>But over the past few days and weeks, as country after country has been “mugged by reality”, the pessimists have been gaining ground across the world. In Europe, this shift of popular opinion was largely thanks to events in Italy, which happened to be ten days ahead of the rest of other European countries on the exponential growth curve and so functioned as a sort of a crystal ball into which we could peer into our own near-term future. </p>
<p>As the situation in northern Italy escalated, abstract epidemiological arguments – about exponential growth, case fatality rates and ICU capacity factor – turned into <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/coronavirus-funerals">horrifying stories</a> and images, of wartime triage of the weak and elderly, of crematoria no longer able to keep up with the pile of corpses, of weeping doctors and nurses on the brink of collapse, and of elderly people dying alone, without a chance to say goodbye to their loved ones.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_J60fQr0GWo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Horrifying stories.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Every prophet of doom with a moral conscience not only fervently hopes that their predictions will be proven wrong, they will also try their utmost to bring this about. If this happens, we can talk about a “self-defeating prophecy”, the lesser-known cousin of the “self-fulfilling prophecy”. Alas, one major drawback of such prophecies is that sceptics will inevitably come forward and say: “You see – we told you it wouldn’t be all that bad.” In fact, you can see people committing that logical fallacy right now.</p>
<p>Take the shocking <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf">report</a> of the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team, published on March 16. In this document, prepared by a team of Britain’s top epidemiologists, the authors modelled the effects of different measures on the COVID-19 epidemic, from mild “mitigation” policies (such as isolating the elderly, banning large events and closing schools) to more stringent “suppression” policies (social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their families). In their baseline scenario, in which the virus was allowed to spread unchecked, the capacity of ICU beds in the UK would have been exceeded 30 times over and half a million people would die. </p>
<p>With an optimal combination of mitigation measures – the strategy favoured at the time by the UK government – the hospital capacity would still be exceeded eight times over and the pandemic would kill an estimated 250,000 people (in the US, more than a million). And those figures, the authors point out, don’t even take into account the indirect deaths due to other conditions in the wake of the collapsing healthcare system.</p>
<p>By nature, scientists are a conservative and cautious bunch, especially when they have to come up with a consensus document. Predictions about hundreds of thousands of casualties are not made lightly, and so, fortunately, the researchers’ dire warnings were heeded. </p>
<p>Within days, the UK buried its original mitigation strategy, which had been a <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-12/british-government-wants-uk-to-acquire-coronavirus-herd-immunity-writes-robert-peston/">reckless gamble on the concept of “herd immunity”</a>, and converged on the same set of suppression measures that we have witnessed in the rest of Europe. </p>
<p>Have the “people of this country had enough of experts”, as Brexit campaigner Michael Gove <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c">infamously claimed</a> before the 2016 referendum? Fortunately, they haven’t quite tired of all experts yet. By predicting hundreds of thousands of casualties, the scientists from Imperial College forced the Johnson administration to adopt new policy measures that will, hopefully, prevent the fulfilment of their predictions. </p>
<p>Needless to say, these predictions may have been wrong, due to some faulty assumption or modelling error. But it’s important to bear in mind this logical point: if you criticise the UK’s current lockdown policy, you shouldn’t look at the actual death toll of COVID-19 but at the number of people who would have died in the absence of suppression.</p>
<p>And this is exactly what many of those who downplay the coronavirus threat forget. When the lead author of the Imperial College report, Neil Ferguson, recently downgraded his predictions of the death toll of COVID-19 in the UK, many <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-pandemic-neil-ferguson-did-not-walk-back-covid-19-predictions/">sceptics</a> immediately cried victory, as the head researcher had now, in their view, “admitted to being wrong”. </p>
<p>But as Ferguson went on to <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-pandemic-neil-ferguson-did-not-walk-back-covid-19-predictions/">clarify</a>, he lowered his predictions precisely because of the draconian measures taken by the UK government since the publication of the report. The predicted death toll of the coronavirus without these controls, Ferguson insisted, remains exactly the same.</p>
<h2>The sceptics</h2>
<p>Recently, Ira Helsloot, professor of governance of safety and security at Radboud University in the Netherlands, wrote an <a href="https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/opinie-houd-het-hoofd-koel-en-plaats-ziekte-en-dood-in-perspectief%7Ebd183a83/">op-ed</a> about the pandemic mentioning the 2,800 people who died of non-coronavirus-related causes in the Netherlands that week, by way of putting the 200 coronavirus casualties in proper perspective. Even in Italy, he continued, the common flu takes more victims every year than COVID-19. Conclusion: the world is suffering from “corona hype”, an irrational panic that inspires cures worse than the disease. </p>
<p>But Helsloot fails to take into account the additional number of Italians who would have died without the suppression policy that he condemns. Also, even with the draconian nationwide lockdown in Italy, the coronavirus is far from subdued. Seasonal flu doesn’t hit us like an avalanche, but the coronavirus does, mainly because of the complete absence of immunity in the general population. </p>
<p>Even Gerd Gigerenzer from the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, whom I admire for his excellent work on risk and uncertainty, fails to take into account the phenomenon of self-refuting prophecies, in a rather insouciant and minimalist <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/greater-risk-literacy-can-reduce-coronavirus-fear-by-gerd-gigerenzer-2020-03">piece</a> about the coronavirus pandemic entitled: “What Does Not Kill Us Makes Us Panic.” </p>
<p>In his overview of earlier epidemics that didn’t kill as many people as the authorities had considered in their worst-case scenarios, such as the swine flu outbreak of 2009, Gigerenzer doesn’t pause to consider the effects of the actions that were taken by those authorities to <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61252/the2009influenzapandemic-review.pdf">forestall</a> their worst predictions.</p>
<p>One more example. Minimalists such as Richard Epstein at the Hoover Institute have <a href="https://www.hoover.org/research/coronavirus-overreaction">cited</a> the low case fatality rate of COVID-19 in South Korea and Singapore, which are precisely the places that have tested for the virus most extensively. Doesn’t this prove that we are overestimating the deadliness of the coronavirus and that we are panicking over nothing? No, because this argument ignores the fact that South Korea took the coronavirus threat very seriously right from the start, probably chastened by their earlier bad experience with the viruses that caused Sars and Mers. </p>
<p>South Korea and Singapore managed to keep their fatality rate low precisely because they <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-south-koreas-success-in-controlling-disease-is-due-to-its-acceptance-of-surveillance-134068">took swift and drastic measures</a> that stemmed the outbreak in their countries and kept the pressure on hospitals to a tolerable level – measures for which it is now, sadly, probably too late in most western countries. </p>
<p>Despite a widespread misconception, the case fatality rate (CFR) of a virus is not some biological constant or intrinsic trait – it is a function of context and circumstances. If all the available mechanical ventilators are occupied, then every next patient who needs one will most likely die. This is also why it is misleading to <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/">extrapolate</a> from the observed fatality rate during the early outbreak on the cruise ship Diamond Princess, as even the world-renowned epidemiologist John Ioannidis did in a much-cited essay. (By the way, since the time of his writing, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_cruise_ships">five more passengers</a> have died, increasing the fatality rate by more than 70%.)</p>
<h2>More invisible enemies lie in wait</h2>
<p>A failure to appreciate the nature of self-refuting prophecies is worrying because we know that this will not be the last pandemic to hit humanity. In a world as hyperconnected as ours, and with a huge reservoir of virus strains in other mammals (1,200 bat species alone, one of which may have given us SARS-CoV-2), the arrival of the next pandemic is merely a matter of time. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/324637/original/file-20200401-23130-1hn1dg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/324637/original/file-20200401-23130-1hn1dg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/324637/original/file-20200401-23130-1hn1dg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/324637/original/file-20200401-23130-1hn1dg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/324637/original/file-20200401-23130-1hn1dg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/324637/original/file-20200401-23130-1hn1dg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/324637/original/file-20200401-23130-1hn1dg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A huge reservoir of virus strains.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/greater-horseshoe-bat-rhinolophus-ferrumequinum-627747203">Attila Barsan/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our current invisible enemy has several dangerous features – high transmissibility, long incubation time, asymptomatic spread, relatively high mortality – but it is not the worst imaginable pathogen by any stretch. If the genetic lottery brings up even less favourable numbers next time around, then a far more dangerous virus than SARS-CoV-2 is entirely within the realm of possibility. In that case, the current pandemic might just have been a “dry run” for the Big One. </p>
<p>In his recently published <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-precipice-9781526600219/">book</a>, The Precipice, philosopher Toby Ord considers the possibility of different global catastrophic risks and ranks pandemics (both natural and engineered ones) as among the largest threats to the future of humanity, far surpassing better-known global problems such as climate change. </p>
<p>As the novelist Frank Herbert once said: “The function of sci-fi is not to predict the future, but to prevent it.” That leads us into a strange paradox: the better we manage to contain this pandemic, the less we will learn from it. Because there is one thing you can bet on for sure: as soon as this whole crisis blows over, the same minimalists will come forward and claim that it wasn’t as bad as the “fearmongers” had told us. Indeed, some of them are already busy committing that very fallacy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/135268/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maarten Boudry receives funding from the Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO).</span></em></p>The pitfalls of self-defeating prophecies.Maarten Boudry, Postdoctoral Researcher of the Philosophy of Science, Ghent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1044132018-10-23T01:39:16Z2018-10-23T01:39:16ZA priest says sceptics should stop demanding proof of climate change, as that’s not how science works<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241560/original/file-20181022-105757-q0qiya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An Anglican priest teaching climate change is often asked about the difference between science and faith.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/catalina.m</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As an Anglican priest teaching in philosophy and in climate change at two universities, I am often asked about the difference between science and my own faith convictions.</p>
<p>“Isn’t science about objective proof and evidence and certainty,” they ask with a quizzical look. The question then trails off but the implication is obvious, “and isn’t your faith about subjective, personal belief and values?”</p>
<p>Their quizzical looks arise from a misunderstanding about the nature of scientific knowledge, and more generally about what it means to make a truth claim, that lies behind climate scepticism.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570">Where's the proof in science? There is none</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Any announcement on climate change opens the door to climate sceptics and deniers who doubt that human activities have a significant influence on global climate.</p>
<p>But the sceptics have a point: there is no proof. If that shakes your confidence as a true climate change believer, think again.</p>
<p>We have been led to believe that science offers proof and certainty, and anything less than that is just a theory or not even science at all.</p>
<p>But the problem isn’t with the science, it’s with our naïve and impossible expectations of science. And the climate change sceptic often has unrealistic standards of evidence that we simply do not accept in everyday life.</p>
<h2>Forensic proof: ‘beyond reasonable doubt’</h2>
<p>In most of life the unwritten rules for what counts as evidence are those of the law court: proof beyond reasonable doubt. What is considered beyond reasonable doubt is left for a juror to decide.</p>
<p>Even in mathematics – where proof has a more fixed meaning – some axioms need to be accepted to start raising the edifice of knowledge.</p>
<p>In natural science, just as in economics or sociology or history, theories are provisionally accepted because they seem to make the most sense of the evidence as it is understood.</p>
<p>What counts as evidence is determined according to the sort of truth claim being made. Particle physics seeks different evidence to historical claims; economics offers different sorts of evidence to moral philosophy. It’s horses for courses when it comes to evidence and truth claims.</p>
<p>In climate science, empirical observations blend with theories and modelling. Theories and models are tested as far as possible but in the end no amount of testing and confirmation can absolutely prove the case. </p>
<p>This is the nature of the inductive thinking that grounds science. “All swans are white” was accepted as true (because all the evidence pointed that way) until <a href="https://theconversation.com/black-swans-and-other-deviations-like-evolution-all-scientific-theories-are-a-work-in-progress-95544">Europeans visited Australia and found black swans</a>. </p>
<p>The latest <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/">special report</a> from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch">IPCC</a>) is based on the scientific consensus of the experts in their respective fields.</p>
<p>One of the IPCC report’s authors is Professor <a href="https://gci.uq.edu.au/professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg">Ove Hoegh-Guldberg</a>, head of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute, and he <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/ipcc-report-findings-2018-10">said</a> that it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…strongly concludes that climate change is already affecting people, ecosystems and livelihood all around the world, and that it is beyond reasonable doubt that humans are responsible.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While we may have good reasons for believing in climate change and for taking action, that still does not constitute proof or absolute certainty – which brings us back to the sceptics.</p>
<h2>The fallacious sceptical argument</h2>
<p>Here’s one way the climate change sceptical argument works:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Premise 1: Science gives us proof and certainty.</p></li>
<li><p>Premise 2: Climate change is not proven or certain.</p></li>
<li><p>Conclusion: Climate change is not science.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>This argument is good in one sense: it is logically coherent. So if you want to challenge the conclusion you need to challenge one or other premise. </p>
<p>But it would be a (common) mistake to challenge Premise 2 by arguing the unwinnable case that climate science is proven to be true in some absolute sense. In fact, the problem is with Premise 1, as explained above: science does not offer the sort of proof or certainty that the sceptic demands.</p>
<p>This provisionality is recognised in the careful wording of the IPCC which does not speak of proof: just look at page 4 of the <a href="http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf">latest report</a> where the word “likely” appears seven times and where “high” or “medium confidence” appear nine times. Careful science speaks of degrees of confidence.</p>
<p>Eminent scientist turned philosopher of science, Michael Polanyi, was one of the first to highlight the provisionality of scientific claims. His purpose in writing his main work, <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=oIqFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228#v=onepage&q&f=false">Personal Knowledge</a>, was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…to achieve a frame of mind in which I may hold firmly to what I believe to be true, even though I know that it might conceivably be false.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>John Polkinghorne, former professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge University (and also an Anglican priest) <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lW6pAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT24&dq=a%20tightening%20grasp%20of%20a%20never%20completely%20comprehended%20reality&pg=PT24#v=onepage&q=a%20tightening%20grasp%20of%20a%20never%20completely%20comprehended%20reality&f=false">observed in his book One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology</a> that science results in:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…a tightening grasp of a never completely comprehended reality.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uns-1-5-c-special-climate-report-at-a-glance-104547">The UN's 1.5°C special climate report at a glance</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/144214-scientific-knowledge-is-a-body-of-statements-of-varying-degrees">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty, some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite the sceptics’ muddying of the waters, climate science is good science, the stakes are enormous, and we proceed with business as usual at our peril. While the evidence does not amount to certain proof, it is beyond reasonable doubt and leaves no room for delay.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104413/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Mulherin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An Anglican priest teaching about climate change says people have a naïve view of how science really works.Chris Mulherin, Lecturer, Executive Director of ISCAST–Christians in Science, and Anglican minister, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/695572016-11-30T19:18:57Z2016-11-30T19:18:57ZWhose word should you respect in any debate on science?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148067/original/image-20161130-16998-65bal8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">So many voices but who should you listen to in any debate on science matters?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/coffeehuman</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/">motto of the Royal Society</a>, Britain’s and perhaps the world’s oldest scientific society, is “<em>nullius in verba</em>” which it says translates as “take nobody’s word for it”.</p>
<p>This is a rejection of the idea that truth can be sought through authority. It is a call to turn to experimentation and direct engagement with the physical world to discover truth. A noble sentiment indeed.</p>
<p>It’s also one of the key arguments used by deniers of climate science in attempts to refute both that the world is warming and that this warming is a result of human activity (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).</p>
<p>This is a common approach, exemplified by Australian Senator <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/malcolm-roberts-30030">Malcolm Roberts</a> in his many interviews on the subject.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G8Dqw7BNqcI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Roberts misunderstanding the role of authority in science.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It gives deniers an excuse to reject the overwhelming endorsement of science organisations around the world, including the Royal Society itself, and academies of science from more than <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm">80 other countries</a>, that AGW is a reality.</p>
<p>The argument is simple, and goes a bit like this. Science does not work by appeal to authority, but rather by the acquisition of experimentally verifiable evidence. Appeals to scientific bodies are appeals to authority, so should be rejected.</p>
<p>The contradiction here is that the Royal Society is <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/">saying the planet is warming through human activity</a>, but its motto seems to suggest we should not listen to it (or any other group). How can this contradiction be resolved?</p>
<h2>Rebellion against authority</h2>
<p>It is important to understand that the Royal Society was formed in 1660 in the shadow of a millennium of near-absolute church authority, including the general acceptance of <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/">Aristotelian natural philosophy</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148034/original/image-20161130-16998-ygs3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148034/original/image-20161130-16998-ygs3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148034/original/image-20161130-16998-ygs3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148034/original/image-20161130-16998-ygs3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148034/original/image-20161130-16998-ygs3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148034/original/image-20161130-16998-ygs3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148034/original/image-20161130-16998-ygs3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148034/original/image-20161130-16998-ygs3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Aristotle’s views went unquestioned for centuries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/thelefty</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The rebellion against this authority was also a celebration of the freedom to elevate the credibility of scientific exploration over that of church teachings and other accepted dogma.</p>
<p>Importantly, the authority to which the Royal Society’s motto alludes was a non-scientific one. The motto represents the superiority of verifiable empirical claims over claims driven by religious or political ideology. No motto could better represent the optimism of the times.</p>
<p>It is also important to understand that much of the science then undertaken was rather crude by modern standards and, by its reliance on very basic technology, was verifiable by individuals, or at least small groups of individuals.</p>
<h2>Modern science</h2>
<p>The science of the 21st century is in most areas far too complex to be understood, let alone experimentally verified, by any one person. Science is now a vast collaborative web of information characterised by the dynamic interplay and testing of ideas on a global scale.</p>
<p>The sharing of experimental results and the collective scrutiny of ideas forge deep and complex understandings. Teams of scientists from a range of specialities are often required to interpret and use this knowledge.</p>
<p>The suggestion that a subject as complex as global warming, for example, could be verified by a single person, untrained and untutored in the norms of scientific inquiry, betrays a staggering ignorance about the nature of modern science. </p>
<p>It is also arrogant in its assumption that something not immediately obvious to oneself cannot be the case.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148036/original/image-20161130-17069-je75a8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148036/original/image-20161130-17069-je75a8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148036/original/image-20161130-17069-je75a8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148036/original/image-20161130-17069-je75a8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148036/original/image-20161130-17069-je75a8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148036/original/image-20161130-17069-je75a8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148036/original/image-20161130-17069-je75a8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148036/original/image-20161130-17069-je75a8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Engineers clean mirror with carbon dioxide snow.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/engineers-clean-mirror-with-carbon-dioxide-snow">NASA/Chris Gunn</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The non-fallacy of appealing to authority</h2>
<p>It’s also worth pointing out that the recourse to authority is often presented as a fallacy of reasoning, the so-called “<a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoAuthority">appeal to authority</a>” fallacy.</p>
<p>But this is not the case. The fallacy would be more correctly named the “appeal to false authority” – for example when celebrities who are famous for their sporting or entertainment achievements are cited in support of a particular medical treatment.</p>
<p>Appeals to appropriate authorities, such as experts in their fields, are one of the glues that hold our technological society together. We go to our doctor for her expertise and we are happy to take her advice without the insistence that the efficacy of potential treatments be demonstrated to us there and then. </p>
<p>Engineers build impressively tall buildings, pilots fly incredibly complex machines, and business experts advise on financial markets. All this expertise is confidently assimilated into our lives because we recognise its value and legitimacy.</p>
<p>It is not fallacious reasoning to accept expert advice. We rely on the authority of experts for quality control in many areas, including the peer-review process of science and other academic disciplines.</p>
<p>Assuming that the motto of the Royal Society suggests we should not listen to the collective wisdom of scientists because science is not about respecting expertise is simply indefensible. </p>
<h2>Experts advise</h2>
<p>In fact, the role of many such societies in the 17th and 18th centuries was to act as a conduit between scientists and governments for the provision of expert advice.</p>
<p>If legitimate authorities are not to be consulted, presumably there is no point in having scientists around at all, as each person would need to verify any claim on their own terms and with their own resources. That would mean a speedy decline into very dark times indeed.</p>
<p>Deniers of climate science such as Senator Roberts are among those most in violation of the creed “<em>nullius in verba</em>”. Their continued insistence on “<a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/one-nations-new-senator-malcolm-roberts-thinks-climate-change-is-rubbish/news-story/2805253591061b450a424fb4eb11d9bd">empirical evidence</a>” while simultaneously rejecting it (usually through invoking some <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ironclad-logic-of-conspiracy-theories-and-how-to-break-it-31684">conspiracy theory</a>) suggests an immature rationality at best, and outright duplicity at worst.</p>
<p>Their refusal to accept empirically verified evidence because it goes against their existing beliefs is the very stuff against which the Royal Society rebelled. </p>
<p>They may have a voice, but they have no authority in this debate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69557/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Modern science can be difficult or complex for one person to understand and verify, especially a non-scientist. So who should we believe when scientific evidence is met with denial?Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/627682016-07-21T04:34:13Z2016-07-21T04:34:13ZWhy we need to hear what controversial people say and not silence the debate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131179/original/image-20160720-8062-17uj8j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2787%2C1639&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Let them speak.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/danielavladimirova/6234105065/">LaVladina/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We who live in Western liberal democracies seem to be in a permanent state of angst about who should be allowed to speak and what they should be allowed to speak about. </p>
<p>This angst is acute at the moment, since low-key voices that once represented extreme views on a range of social issues have recently become louder.</p>
<p>Whether it’s US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-911-attack-refugees-isis-phones-a7030851.html">denigrating refugees</a> and talking of <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/donald-trumps-call-to-ban-muslim-immigrants/419298/">banning Muslims from entering his country</a> or Australia’s One Nation leader and senator-elect Pauline Hanson <a href="https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2016/04/23/pauline-hansons-senate-chances-aided-voting-reforms/14613336003163">rubbishing climate science</a> and talking of <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/pauline-hanson-to-push-for-ban-on-new-mosques-royal-commission-into-islam/news-story/1fde2f7903942cad6387d93fc210d0dd">banning Muslims from entering her country</a>, this joltingly aggressive posturing has found traction with voters.</p>
<p>It’s not uncommon to hear people applaud this approach because, after all, they “<a href="http://www.mamamia.com.au/pauline-hanson-voters/">speak their mind</a>”. But what is so good about speaking your mind if it’s a jumbled mess of self-contradiction? </p>
<p>Even if the stream-of-consciousness ramblings of Trump and Hanson, as two examples, are generally incoherent, could there be any good points worth exploring buried under the intellectual rubble? Either way, should we be listening?</p>
<p>Let me make the case for why these views should be heard, with attention to specific contexts and principles.</p>
<h2>You can speak your mind</h2>
<p>The German philosopher <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/immanuel-kant-9360144">Immanuel Kant</a>, in his 1784 essay <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html">What is the Enlightenment?</a>, wrote of the need for public reason.</p>
<p>He highlighted the desirability for those in the public arena, and particularity those holding or vying for power, to spell out their thinking so that we can make up our own individual minds based on a rational analysis of the case rather than a simple appeal to emotions. </p>
<p>A necessary condition of this is that people not only speak their minds, but must lay out the reasoned argument that leads them to their position. It is the argument, not just the end position, that demands evaluation, for only through this process can we establish the credibility of the end point.</p>
<p>This requirement for a common language of rationality is, we hope, what leads to the best outcomes in the long run. It protects us from leaders acting on whims or in their own interests. </p>
<p>It’s also a bulwark against a world where only shouted slogans and appeals to fear make up the substance of public discourse. A world William Yeats glimpsed in his poem <a href="http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html">The Second Coming</a> when he wrote of a time in which:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Divergence of opinion, in which people can simply speak their minds, and hopefully their thinking, is desirable. But this divergence must be followed by a phase of convergence in which alternative views are evaluated and consequently progressed or discarded based on collaboratively established norms of effective reasoning. </p>
<p>Each time we hear a poorly argued view, it should further inoculate us against accepting that view.</p>
<p>If arguments for particular positions with relevance to public life ought be exposed to public scrutiny, they must therefore be listened to and seriously engaged with by at least some people some of the time.</p>
<h2>Listen for only so long</h2>
<p>We do not, however, have the responsibility to elevate a view beyond the point it can attain through its own persuasiveness. Nor are we obliged to keep giving it our attention after its credibility is found wanting.</p>
<p>Appeals for another hearing without fresh arguments or evidence have no inherent right to be further entertained. Such is the nature of debate in young-earth <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/creationism">creationism</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/search?q=anti-vaccination">anti-vaccination</a> advocates or <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/climate-change-denial">climate change denial</a>, wherein the same old constantly refuted arguments come up again for another desperate gasp of public air.</p>
<p>It is fine to insist that an argument be evaluated on the proving ground of public reason. But it is an offence against that same principle to demand it stay on the playing field once it has been effectively refuted. A sure test of this unwarranted persistence is the degree to which reasoned argument is replaced by tub-thumping, fear-mongering and appeals to the status quo.</p>
<p>People are free to keep saying what they like but, as I have <a href="https://theconversation.com/brandis-confuses-right-to-be-heard-with-right-to-be-taken-seriously-25791">written before</a>, they should not mistake the right to speak with the right to be heard once their case has already failed to convince.</p>
<p>The debate is therefore not silenced, but reaches closure through established, socially moderated processes of analysis and evaluation. All else is cheer-leading in an attempt to convince others that you are still on the field. But the rest of us are entitled to just go home.</p>
<h2>Who decides what becomes public?</h2>
<p>This all sounds quite rational, but who are the gatekeepers of the public arena? This is a complex issue. In an ideal world, the entry ticket would be a reasoned case in the public interest, but too many box seats have been pre-sold to vested interests. </p>
<p>So we see media companies such as News Corp <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-australian-media-reject-climate-science-19727">pushing arguments</a> against climate science that have long been discredited. And across the board news items and personalities that are sensational rather than significant are placed front and centre.</p>
<p>Media coverage of those speaking publicly is always a decision, and it’s a decision that exposes bias. Not just for who is heard, but also for who is not heard. </p>
<p>Take, for example, the claim that moderate Muslims do not <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbotts-message-to-muslim-leaders-speak-up-and-mean-it-37901">speak out against extremism</a>. The plethora of cases in which this does occur are <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/muslims-are-speaking-out-but-no-one-is-listening-20140930-10nktr.html">not given a high profile</a>.</p>
<p>We are not obliged to give someone attention, let alone credibility, simply because they are speaking in public. The Enlightenment principles of public reasoning are conditional, and too often these conditions are not met or simply not understood. </p>
<p>But our acceptance and our rejection of views should always be a reflective practice, measured against long-established norms of rationality. </p>
<p>No one should be silenced, but that doesn’t mean everyone needs to be listened to.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62768/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Controversial arguments and ideas should be listened to and open to public scrutiny. Only then can we expose those ideas found wanting and lacking any credibility.Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595872016-06-19T20:09:31Z2016-06-19T20:09:31ZUFOs, climate change and missing airliners: how to separate fact from fiction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126096/original/image-20160610-29241-lxccmy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">UFO or lens flare?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Vladimir Petkov/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’ve been on social media then perhaps you’ve seen the <a href="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ancient-aliens">“Ancient Aliens” meme</a>; a wild-haired alien aficionado Giorgio A. Tsoukalos attributing all manner of things to aliens. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126099/original/image-20160610-29200-1i698fz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126099/original/image-20160610-29200-1i698fz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126099/original/image-20160610-29200-1i698fz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126099/original/image-20160610-29200-1i698fz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126099/original/image-20160610-29200-1i698fz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126099/original/image-20160610-29200-1i698fz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=660&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126099/original/image-20160610-29200-1i698fz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=660&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126099/original/image-20160610-29200-1i698fz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=660&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Giorgio A. Tsoukalos is a well known speculator about alien visitation to Earth.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">History Channel</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Attributing the pyramids to aliens is absurd. But taking something very real and being completely wrong about its cause is all too common, particularly in media reporting. Unfortunately, these attribution errors are often taken more seriously than Tsoukalos’ aliens.</p>
<p>Fortunately, scientists have some strategies in their arsenal for avoiding such attribution errors. And you don’t require a PhD and research lab to use the strategies. </p>
<h2>Searching for MH370</h2>
<p>The search for missing <a href="http://jacc.gov.au/search/index.aspx">Malaysian Airlines MH370</a> has been marred by <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/orange-objects--in-search-for-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-just-buoys-20140331-35u9v.html">false alarms</a>. Many of these false alarms were preventable, using techniques often employed by scientists. </p>
<p>Some searches relied on <a href="https://thehuntformh370.info/content/possible-mh370-debris-sighting-sio">visual inspection of satellite images</a>, including images that have been digitally altered in the hope of identifying relatively small pieces of debris. </p>
<p>While some searchers were cautious, predictable false alarms arose. Many debris sightings were linked with MH370, when in all likelihood they had nothing to do with the missing jet. There’s a lot of fish in the sea, and a lot of rubbish too. Further, people using digitally enhanced images may have misidentified image artefacts as debris. </p>
<p>The false alarms could have been reduced using control samples (some searches may have used control samples, but this has gone largely unreported). For example, if satellite images from inside and outside the search area were inspected, one could estimate the number of debris sightings not associated with MH370. In a sense, this happened inadvertently when initial searches unfortunately focused on the South China Sea instead of the Indian Ocean.</p>
<p>Searching for known objects may have also reduced the false alarms. For example, there are claims online that <a href="https://theaviationist.com/2014/03/24/meteosat-mh370-contrails/">MH370’s contrails</a> are visible in satellite images. If this were true, satellite images should also show contrails from other jets with known flight paths crossing the Indian Ocean on the same day. This cross check (among others) is largely absent from online discussions of MH370. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123316/original/image-20160520-4475-16gak0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123316/original/image-20160520-4475-16gak0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123316/original/image-20160520-4475-16gak0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123316/original/image-20160520-4475-16gak0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123316/original/image-20160520-4475-16gak0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123316/original/image-20160520-4475-16gak0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123316/original/image-20160520-4475-16gak0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123316/original/image-20160520-4475-16gak0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Searches for MH370 using satellites has been marred by false alarms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/SASTIND</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>UFOs and Einstein</h2>
<p>If I want to quickly find unconvincing UFO stories, the <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/science">Science section</a> of the UK’s Daily Express is a good place to start. (And the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html">Daily Mail</a> isn’t that far behind.)</p>
<p>Many UFO snapshots are patterns of light created by <a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm">lens flares</a> and <a href="https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-airplane-passenger-takes-picture-of-ufo-that-was-giving-off-bright-lights-and-orbs.t7021/">reflections</a> off windows. These artefacts are well known to astronomers, professional photographers and film director <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/30/4788758/j-j-abrams-apologizes-for-his-overusing-lens-flares">J.J. Abrams</a>, but are perhaps unfamiliar to some tabloid journalists. </p>
<p>Scientists often gain understanding, including correctly interpreting data, by collaborating with relevant experts. And such collaborations shouldn’t be limited to scientists. </p>
<p>Last year I was emailed by someone who witnessed a star brighten and then rapidly disappear. Fortunately she recorded the time and location of the event, and I recognised it was an “<a href="http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/observing-iridium-flares/">iridium flare</a>” produced by an orbiting satellite. Someone unfamiliar with iridium flares could believe they saw a UFO or an exploding star, but collaboration demystified the initially strange and inexplicable.</p>
<p>Many Daily Express’ alien stories discuss rather elaborate theories about the mundane. A Mars rock that looks a bit like a person (or just about anything) is <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616994/Mars-shocker-Alien-peering-cave-found-NASA-Red-Planet-picture">evidence for aliens</a>. Shadows on the moon aren’t just lumps and bumps on the lunar surface, but evidence for <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/659093/BUGZILLA-found-UFO-spotters-say-NASA-images-show-HUGE-insect-living-on-the-MOON">a giant insect</a>. Nope. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123317/original/image-20160520-16754-locte0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123317/original/image-20160520-16754-locte0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123317/original/image-20160520-16754-locte0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123317/original/image-20160520-16754-locte0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123317/original/image-20160520-16754-locte0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123317/original/image-20160520-16754-locte0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123317/original/image-20160520-16754-locte0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123317/original/image-20160520-16754-locte0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Daily Express may think this is science reporting, but I have my doubts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Google image search</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There may well be aliens somewhere in the universe, but if you are looking at a rocky planetary landscape, you are probably looking at rocks and shadows, not aliens.</p>
<p>Mundane explanations aren’t just for debunking tabloid UFO stories. In 2011, the OPERA experiment hinted that <a href="https://theconversation.com/neutrinos-and-the-speed-of-light-not-so-fast-3513">neutrinos could travel faster than light</a>. However, even the OPERA scientists were cautious about this result, given it was at odds with Einstein’s theory of relativity. </p>
<p>A scientific theory like relativity is more than just an idea; it is a “<a href="http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html">comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence</a>”. Established theories can be powerful tools for determining if a claim is likely to be true. </p>
<p>In the case of the speeding neutrinos, <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk-faster-light-neutrinos">a dodgy connection</a> in the experiment was found to be producing erroneously fast measurements. The mundane trumped the headlines. </p>
<h2>Bed sheets and ski resorts</h2>
<p>“<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%22correlation%20is%20not%20causation%22&src=typd">Correlation is not causation</a>” is a great victory of science communication. Millions now know that two sets of data can line up very nicely just by random chance.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations">Spurious Correlations</a> website has many excellent examples of meaningless correlations. I particularly like the correlation between <a href="http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=1864">deaths caused entanglement in bed sheets with revenue from skiing facilities</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123313/original/image-20160520-4475-1jezggd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123313/original/image-20160520-4475-1jezggd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123313/original/image-20160520-4475-1jezggd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=209&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123313/original/image-20160520-4475-1jezggd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=209&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123313/original/image-20160520-4475-1jezggd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=209&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123313/original/image-20160520-4475-1jezggd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123313/original/image-20160520-4475-1jezggd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123313/original/image-20160520-4475-1jezggd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is there a lethal connection between bed sheets and ski resorts?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tyler Vigen</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is all fine and well, but how do you tell meaningful correlations from the spurious correlations? Indeed, pseudo scientists will invoke “correlation is not causation” to dismiss <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%22correlation%20is%20not%20causation%22%20vaccines%20-autism&src=typd">vaccines</a> or <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%22correlation%20is%20not%20causation%22%20CO2%20&src=typd">climate science</a>. The answer is science doesn’t stop at simple comparisons of data on plots.</p>
<p>For example, the rise in global temperatures is correlated with the rise in atmospheric CO₂. But the science doesn’t end there. One can look at temperature rise as a function of <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html">location, altitude and time of day</a>. Theory predicts more CO₂ increases the <a href="https://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Ertp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf">absorption of infrared light</a>, <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html">thermal expansion of the warming oceans</a> contributes to sea level rise, and natural impacts on climate aren’t ignored. Science is more than a plot correlating two sets of data.</p>
<p>When it comes to pseudoscience, the analysis often stops with the simple plots. Online I’ve argued with the climate “sceptic” blogger <a href="https://twitter.com/MJIBrown/status/715138555916341249">Joanne Codling</a> about her climate claims, which have been publicised by <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/climate_cracks/">Miranda Devine in the Daily Telegraph</a>. </p>
<p>Curiously Codling and her husband have a graph that suggests nuclear tests had <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20160213024941/http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vii-hindcasting-with-the-solar-model/">a bigger impact on global temperatures than volcanoes</a>. They’ve speculated dust was responsible, but they didn’t seek additional evidence. </p>
<p>Even a cursory look at measurements of <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/gmdlidar/mlo/gmdlidar_mlo.html">atmospheric particulates</a> shows volcanoes injected far more dust into the air than nuclear tests. Volcanoes had a greater impact on climate than nuclear tests, correlation isn’t causation, and science is more than lining up data on graphs.</p>
<p>We live in a data-rich world. We can upload camera phone images in an instant, or download data and examine it with a spread sheet. Understanding the origins of what we see is harder. But with a little bit of scientific method we can all avoid the worst attribution errors.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59587/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. I. Brown receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and Monash University, and has developed space-related titles for Monash University's MWorld educational app.
</span></em></p>It’s easy to attribute the wrong cause to a mysterious phenomenon. But science has some tools to help you avoid these attribution errors.Michael J. I. Brown, Associate professor, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/581842016-05-09T08:55:24Z2016-05-09T08:55:24ZWhat forensic science can teach people about healthy scepticism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121505/original/image-20160506-32031-3c5rwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How can you navigate a world full of outlandish claims?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scepticism has a bad reputation. Sceptics are considered to be a grumpy bunch who automatically distrust anything and everything. But as any forensic scientist can tell you, it’s a very valuable approach to everyday situations– especially in a world where people are constantly being bombarded with information. </p>
<p>Every day we’re presented with <a href="https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-miracle-cure-for-everything/">“miracle cures”</a> and <a href="http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dr-oz-admits-%E2%80%98miracle%E2%80%99-diet-products-he-advocates-are-pseudoscience">“wonder diets”</a>. Conspiracy theories and urban myths abound. We’re told that <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/superfoods/Pages/superfoods.aspx">“superfoods”</a> can change our lives. We’re assured that the appliances in our homes are perfectly safe. All of these claims are accompanied by what’s referred to as “evidence”. But how often do we critically interrogate this evidence?</p>
<p>I’m a trained forensic pathologist and teach the subject at a South African university. Some of the things that our students learn can be applied to help navigate those fantastic claims leaping out at you from pharmacy shelves, Facebook pages and in grocery stores.</p>
<h2>How forensic scientists think</h2>
<p>Most scientists, when approached with a claim that sounds too good to be true, will respond: “That’s nice – let’s prove it!” Forensic scientists, though, will reply: “That’s nice – let’s disprove it!” That’s the way we’re trained to think.</p>
<p>Our work entails asking many questions and looking at all of the available data. Two famous sceptics who applied forensic thinking to their work, <a href="http://www.michaelshermer.com/about-michael/">Michael Shermer</a> and <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/burden_of_skepticism">Carl Sagan</a>, came up with a list of <a href="http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/06/baloney-detection-kit/">basic questions</a> that can be asked to get to the heart of the validity of any fantastic claim. Sagan was a world renowned professor of astronomy and director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University. He was also a consultant and adviser to NASA. Shermer is a science writer, science historian and the publisher of <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/">Skeptic</a> magazine.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>How reliable is the source of the claim? </p></li>
<li><p>Does this source often make similar claims? </p></li>
<li><p>Have the claims been verified by another source? </p></li>
<li><p>How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works? </p></li>
<li><p>Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought? </p></li>
<li><p>Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant’s conclusion or to a different one? </p></li>
<li><p>Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favour of others that lead to the desired conclusion? </p></li>
<li><p>Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation? </p></li>
<li><p>If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did? </p></li>
<li><p>Do the claimant’s personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa? </p></li>
</ol>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aNSHZG9blQQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How to think like a sceptic.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Scepticism in action</h2>
<p>I saw this sort of questioning in action while attending a coroner court hearing in Britain. A man had hit a woman with his car. She then developed deep venous thrombosis – a blood clot – in her legs, which broke off and travelled to her lungs, causing a pulmonary embolism. She died. </p>
<p>At the hearing, the man was asked why he thought he’d collided with the woman. He explained that he’d been blinded by sunlight and hadn’t even seen her. The forensic scientists involved in the case put his story through rigorous tests. They confirmed that the sun was blinding at that particular time of year at that particular intersection and at 4pm specifically – which was when the crash had happened. All of the questions Sagan and Shermer outlined were applied and lots of data was gathered.</p>
<p>The magistrate ordered that a billboard be erected near that intersection so that the sunlight wouldn’t blind drivers at 4pm at that time of year.</p>
<p>The man’s claims were treated with scepticism and carefully assessed. It was solved with what medical practitioners call a <a href="http://p4mi.org/p4medicine">“P4 approach”</a>: predictive, preventative, participatory and personalised. In this case, it would prevent the same kind of accident from happening again. This is one of the most valuable aspects of forensic, sceptical thinking. If you carefully analyse claims and sift through the available evidence, you can make educated choices that can save time, money – and even lives – later on. This is the feedback system that all societies need.</p>
<h2>Empowering people</h2>
<p>This sort of thinking can be applied in many situations. In large parts of the developing world, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415938/">primus stoves</a> cause hundreds of deaths and many more injuries, almost every winter. Imagine if communities were equipped with the sort of forensic, sceptical tools I’ve described in this article? They’d be better able to assess which sorts of stoves are safe and which aren’t, and to demand improvements from the manufacturers. They wouldn’t be forced to take manufacturers’ or retailers’ claims at face value.</p>
<p>Forensic thinking and healthy scepticism can help us all to navigate the world much more thoughtfully – and safely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58184/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ryan Blumenthal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Forensic scientists are trained to disprove claims. This sort of thinking is useful when you’re trying to make sense of “miracle cures”, “wonder drugs” and other fantastic claims.Ryan Blumenthal, Senior Specialist, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.