tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/skeptics-8845/articlesSkeptics – The Conversation2022-01-04T21:41:26Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1710002022-01-04T21:41:26Z2022-01-04T21:41:26ZThe reasons for science skepticism can be complex and founded on real concerns<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439188/original/file-20220103-23072-757qcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C7166%2C4782&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Empathy is needed to understand and combat science skepticism.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 175px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/the-reasons-for-science-skepticism-can-be-complex-and-founded-on-real-concerns" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>A popular internet meme juxtaposes a picture of a female scientist working in a lab captioned “Vaccine Research” with that of a woman looking at her smart phone while sitting on the toilet captioned “Anti-Vax Research.” The meme reflects an attitude towards science skepticism in general and vaccine hesitancy in particular. </p>
<p>This attitude automatically brands all those who harbour doubts about the scientific consensus on a certain topic as “anti-vaxxers,” “climate skeptics” or “science deniers,” and chalks up their unwillingness to accept the scientific consensus to some combination of ignorance, stupidity, recklessness and selfishness. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/answers-from-covid-experts-how-do-you-talk-to-family-members-who-arent-vaccinated-how-can-the-vaccines-be-safe-if-they-were-developed-so-quickly-is-natural-immunity-better-than-being-vaccinated-174032">Answers from COVID experts: How do you talk to family members who aren't vaccinated? How can the vaccines be safe if they were developed so quickly? Is natural immunity better than being vaccinated?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As I have argued in <a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/CONITA-5">my academic work in philosophy</a>, some of these genuine concerns can only be addressed by profound and extensive social and political reforms. Addressing the concerns of the science skeptics requires more than attempting to persuade them to trust science — it also requires us as a society to take the social and political steps required to increase the trustworthiness of science.</p>
<h2>Dismissal and disrespect</h2>
<p>While it might be often tempting to attribute moral or cognitive flaws to those we disagree with, we have at least three very good reasons to resist that temptation. </p>
<p>The first is that these dismissive attitudes towards science skeptics are condescending and disrespectful to our fellow citizens, and they are likely to contribute further to the polarization of our society and to the wear and tear of its social fabric. </p>
<p>The second reason is that the assumption that science skeptics are ignorant or stupid is not supported by the evidence which seems to indicate, for example, that highly educated people are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547">no less likely to doubt science</a> than people with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101569">lower levels of education</a>. </p>
<p>The last (but not the least) reason is that these attitudes are likely to be ineffective if not counterproductive. Instead of looking down on the science skeptics, we should listen to them and try to understand their actual concerns, so that we can take appropriate and effective steps to address them.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439194/original/file-20220103-19-1nhva4z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a group of anti-vaccine mandate protestors holding signs that read UNITY FREEDOM and FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR ALL" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439194/original/file-20220103-19-1nhva4z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439194/original/file-20220103-19-1nhva4z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439194/original/file-20220103-19-1nhva4z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439194/original/file-20220103-19-1nhva4z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439194/original/file-20220103-19-1nhva4z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439194/original/file-20220103-19-1nhva4z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439194/original/file-20220103-19-1nhva4z.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">People gather to protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates and masking measures during a rally in Kingston, Ont.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Lars Hagberg</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reasons for hesitancy</h2>
<p>Russian author Leo Tolstoy wrote, “<a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15244466">All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way</a>.” Something similar could be said about trust in science. As a thought exercise, consider the examples of Savita, Maya and Lara, three highly educated middle-aged women. While each of them is somewhat hesitant about vaccines, their hesitancy has different roots and takes different shapes. </p>
<p>Savita, who is of South Asian descent and is in a heterosexual marriage, believes that her son’s severe allergies were triggered by a shot he was given a couple of days before his first allergic reaction and, while her doctor has tried to reassure her that it was just a coincidence, she is not convinced and is not willing to take any more risks with her children’s health. </p>
<p>Maya, who is Black and in a same-sex relationship, distrusts a medical system that has a record of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113">discrimination against both Black people</a> and <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302631">members of the LGBTQ+ community</a>. </p>
<p>Lara, who is white and single, does not believe that the vaccines against COVID-19 have been properly tested, and feels that they have only been granted emergency approval due to the clout that the pharmaceutical industry has with politicians and regulators. </p>
<p>While these may be common fears about the COVID-19 vaccines, they were properly tested and evaluated, and adverse events, including allergy and anaphylaxis, remain low.</p>
<p>The dominant approach to addressing science skepticism assumes that <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691179001/why-trust-science">science skeptics either do not understand how science works or are ignorant of the existence of a scientific consensus on the relevant issues</a>. According to this view, vaccine hesitancy can be addressed by doctors reassuring patients on the medical consensus that vaccines are safe and effective.</p>
<p>However, to patients like Savita, Maya and Lara, these wholesale reassurances are likely to ring hollow, as <a href="https://upittpress.org/books/9780822946557/">they fail to address their own personal concerns</a>. Attempts to address hesitancy are also likely to come across as patronizing, as they suggest that their recipients are ignorant or reckless.</p>
<h2>Complex phenomenon</h2>
<p>Looking down on the science skeptics and talking down to them is much easier than trying to understand and address their concerns, even when some of those concerns are legitimate. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113">The medical system does display a bias</a> against <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2015.302631">marginalized social groups</a>. The relationship between the pharmaceutical industry with <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-that-built-an-empire-of-pain">medical doctors</a> and <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-side-effects-medical-studies-often-leave-out-adverse-outcomes/">biomedical researchers</a> does raise serious concerns about conflicts of interest. </p>
<p>Even focusing only on vaccine hesitancy, <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-21.2.104">science skepticism is a complex and varied phenomenon</a>. Tarring all science skeptics with the same brush makes us lose sight of the differences between them, leaves us unable to understand the many different roots of their distrust, and leads us to adopt a wrongheaded one-size-fit all approach to addressing them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171000/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabriele Contessa receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>Instead of assuming that science skeptics are motivated by ignorance, or selfishness, we should listen to them and try to understand and address their actual concerns.Gabriele Contessa, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Carleton UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1735782022-01-03T15:58:40Z2022-01-03T15:58:40ZScientific certainty survival kit: How to push back against skeptics who exploit uncertainty for political gain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438254/original/file-20211217-13309-zl5c72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C0%2C6025%2C3999&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It can be difficult to distinguish between the calls of sincere scientists for more research to reach greater certainty, and the politically motivated criticisms of science skeptics. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 175px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/scientific-certainty-survival-kit--how-to-push-back-against-skeptics-who-exploit-uncertainty-for-political-gain" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The mathematician Kurt Gödel was obsessed by the fear that he would die by poisoning. He refused to eat a meal unless it was prepared by his wife, the only person he trusted. When she fell ill and was sent to hospital, <a href="https://www.ias.edu/kurt-g%C3%B6del-life-work-and-legacy">Gödel died of starvation</a>.</p>
<p>His death is sad, but also ironic: The man who discovered that even logical systems are incomplete — that some truths are unprovable — died because he demanded complete proof that his food was safe. He demanded more of his lasagne than he did of logic. </p>
<p>“Don’t eat unless you are 100 per cent certain your food is safe” is a principle that will kill a person as certainly as any poison. So, in the face of uncertainty about our food we take precautions and then we eat — knowing there remains the slimmest chance an unknown enemy has laced our meal with arsenic.</p>
<p>The example of Gödel teaches us a lesson: sometimes the demand for absolute certainty can be dangerous and even deadly. Despite this, demands for absolute or near certainty are a common way for those with a political agenda to undermine science and to delay action. Through our combined experience in science, philosophy and cultural theory, we are acquainted with these attempts to undermine science. We want to help readers figure out how to evaluate their merits or lack thereof. </p>
<h2>A brief history of certainty</h2>
<p>Scientists have amassed abundant evidence that <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm">smoking causes cancer</a>, that the <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/">climate is changing because of humans</a> and that <a href="https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/01/11/vaccines-autism-public-health-expert/">vaccines are safe and effective</a>. But scientists have not proven these results definitively, nor will they ever do so. </p>
<p>Oncology, climate science and epidemiology are not branches of pure mathematics, defined by absolute certainty. Yet it has become something of an industry to disparage the scientific results because they fail to provide certainty equal to 2+2=4. </p>
<p>Some science skeptics say that findings about smoking, global warming and vaccines <a href="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.001.0001/acprof-9780199356102-chapter-10">lack certainty</a> and <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22291183/skeptic-covid-vaccine-climate-change-denial-election-fraud">are therefore unreliable</a>. “What if the science is wrong?” they ask. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-denial-2-0-was-on-full-display-at-cop26-but-there-was-also-pushback-171639">Climate change denial 2.0 was on full display at COP26, but there was also pushback</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This concern can be valid; scientists themselves worry about it. But carried to excess, such criticism often serves political agendas by <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/doubt-is-their-product-9780195300673?cc=ca&lang=en&">persuading people to lose trust in science</a> and <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trend/archive/winter-2021/why-we-must-rebuild-trust-in-science">avoid taking action</a>.</p>
<p>Over 2,000 years ago Aristotle wrote that “<a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html">it is the mark of an educated person to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits</a>.” Scientists have agreed for centuries that it is inappropriate to seek absolute certainty from the empirical sciences. </p>
<p>For example, one of the fathers of modern science, Francis Bacon, wrote in 1620 that his “<em>Novum Organum</em>” — a new method or logic for studying and understanding natural phenomenon — would <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/bacon-novum-organum#Bacon_0415_82">chart a middle path between the excess of dogmatic certainty and the excess of skeptical doubt</a>. This middle path is marked by increasing degrees of probability achieved by careful observation, skilfully executed tests and the collection of evidence. </p>
<p>To demand perfect certainty from scientists now is to be 400 years behind on one’s reading on scientific methodology.</p>
<h2>A certainty survival kit</h2>
<p>It can be difficult to distinguish between the calls of sincere scientists for more research to reach greater certainty, on the one hand, and the politically motivated criticisms of science skeptics, on the other. But there are some ways to tell the difference: First, we highlight some common tactics employed by science skeptics and, second, we provide questions readers might ask when they encounter doubt about scientific certainty.</p>
<p>One common tactic is the old “correlation does not equal causation” chestnut. This one was <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2011.300292">used by the tobacco industry to challenge the link between smoking and cancer in the 1950s and ‘60s</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A package of cigarettes on a table with one cigarette beside it. The box shows a photograph of a tongue covered in white spots, a form of oral cancer caused primarily by smoking." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 2001, Canada became the first country to introduce photographic warnings on cigarette packages, which often focus on cancer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Denis Savard</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Smoking is merely correlated with cancer, the tobacco industry and their representatives argued, it didn’t necessarily cause cancer. But these critics left out the fact that the correlation is very strong, smoking precedes cancer and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1898525/pdf/procrsmed00196-0010.pdf">other potential causes are unable to account for this correlation</a>. </p>
<p>In fact, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53010/">the science linking smoking and lung cancer is now quite clear given the decades of research that produced volumes of supporting evidence</a>. This tactic continues to be a mainstay of many science skeptics even though scientists have well-tested abilities to separate simple correlation from cause and effect relationships.</p>
<p>Another tactic argues that science is unable to prove anything positive, that science only tests and ultimately falsifies theories, conjectures and hypotheses. And so, skeptics say, the real work of science is not to establish truths definitively, but to refute falsehoods definitively. If this were true, <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/">scientific claims would always be “underdetermined”</a> — the idea that whatever evidence is available may not be sufficient to determine whether we believe something to be true.</p>
<p>For example, science could never prove true the claim that humans are warming the planet. While science may fall short of complete proof, scientists nevertheless amass <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL096644">such great evidence that they render their conclusions the most rational among the alternatives</a>. </p>
<p>Science has moved past this criticism of underdetermination, which rests on an outdated philosophy of science made popular by Karl Popper early last century, according to which <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BasiStatFalsConv">science merely falsifies, but never proves</a>. Larry Laudan, a philosopher of science, wrote an influential 1990 essay, “<a href="https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/185722/14_12Laudan.pdf">Demystifying underdetermination</a>,” that shows that this objection to scientific methodology is sloppy and exaggerated. </p>
<p>Scientists can reach conclusions that one explanation is more rational than competing claims, even if scientists cannot prove their conclusions through demonstration. These extensive and varied lines of evidence can collectively lead to positive conclusions and allow us to <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf">know with a high level of certainty that humans are indeed warming the planet</a>.</p>
<h2>Scientists can be the target too</h2>
<p>Another way to drum up uncertainty about what we know is through attacks on scientists. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02741-x">Personal attacks on public health officials during the ongoing pandemic are a prime example</a>. These attacks are often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1741420">framed more broadly to implicate scientists as untrustworthy, profit-seeking or politically motivated</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Wegener's original black and white schematic showing the Earth's continents locked together like a jigsaw puzzle in the first panel, and spread out into their current configuration in the last." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1011&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1011&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1011&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1271&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1271&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1271&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alfred Wegener proposed in 1912 that the continents were once joined together into a single landmass and had drifted apart.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De_Wegener_Kontinente_018.jpg">(Alfred Wegener/Wikimedia)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, consensus among scientists is sometimes touted as no guarantee of truth or, in other words, scientists are sometimes wrong. One well-known example involves the theory of plate tectonics, where the scientific community for several decades largely dismissed the idea proposed by geophysicist Alfred Wegener. This consensus rapidly shifted in the 1960s as <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/plate-tectonics/">evidence mounted in support of continental drift</a>. </p>
<p>While scientists may be using <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/science-top-10-erroneous-results-mistakes">flawed data, suffer from a lack of data or sometimes misinterpret the data that they have</a>, the scientific approach allows for the reconsideration and rethinking of what is known when new evidence arises. While highlighting the occasional scientific mistake can create sensational headlines and reduce trust in scientists, the reality is that science is transparent about its mistakes and generally self-correcting when these issues arise. This is a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/how-science-changes/266145/">feature of science, not a bug</a>.</p>
<h2>Being mindful about certainty</h2>
<p>When reading critiques that inflate the uncertainty of science, we suggest asking the following questions to determine whether the critique is being made in the interest of advancing science or procuring public health, or whether it is being made by someone with a hidden agenda:</p>
<ol>
<li> Who is making the argument? What are their credentials?</li>
<li> Whose interests are served by the argument?</li>
<li> Is the critique of science selective or focused only on science that runs against the interests represented by the speaker? </li>
<li> Does the argument involve any self-critique?</li>
<li> Is the speaker doubting the existence of the problem? Or asking for delay in action until certainty is obtained? Who stands to benefit from this delay?</li>
<li> Does the speaker require a high level of certainty on the one hand, but not on the other? For instance, if the argument is that the safety of a vaccine is not sufficiently certain, what makes the argument against its safety sufficient? </li>
<li> Has the argument made clear how much uncertainty there is? Has the speaker specified a threshold at which point they would feel certain enough to act?</li>
</ol>
<p>A friend of ours recently encountered a vaccine skeptic who articulated their problem this way: “I don’t know what’s in it.” In fact, we do know what is in vaccines, as much as we can know for certain what is in anything else we put in our bodies. The same question can be fruitfully asked of any argument we put in our minds: “Am I sure I know what’s in it?”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173578/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Frost receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marguerite Xenopoulos receives funding from Canada Research Chairs and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. She is Editor-in-Chief of JGR: Biogeosciences.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Epp is affiliated with the NDP as a member and volunteer</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Hickson 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>Skeptics may make demands for absolute certainty to undermine science and delay action. Critiques may not be in the interest of advancing science and public health, but by someone with an agenda.Paul Frost, David Schindler Professor of Aquatic Science, Trent UniversityMarguerite Xenopoulos, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Global Change of Freshwater Ecosystems, Trent UniversityMichael Epp, Associate Professor of Cultural Studies, Trent UniversityMichael Hickson, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/973072018-06-06T10:37:54Z2018-06-06T10:37:54ZWhy won’t scientific evidence change the minds of Loch Ness monster true believers?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221867/original/file-20180605-119860-172rye3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=248%2C237%2C1907%2C1303&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If you're convinced Nessie's real, would science unconvince you?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/AP-I-XSC-TRV-TRAVEL-TRIP-SCOTLAND/1c47fcab2710db11af9f0014c2589dfb/17/0">AP Photo/Norm Goldstein</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You may have noticed a curious recent announcement: An international research team plans to use state-of-the-art DNA testing to establish once and for all <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/search-monster-dna-will-help-survey-life-loch-ness-180969151/">whether the Loch Ness monster exists</a>.</p>
<p>Regardless of the results, it’s unlikely the test will change the mind of anyone who firmly believes in Nessie’s existence. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WnCX7AcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">As a philosopher</a> working on the notion of evidence and knowledge, I still consider the scientists’ efforts to be valuable. Moreover, this episode can illustrate something important about how people think more generally about evidence and science.</p>
<h2>Discounting discomfiting evidence</h2>
<p>Genomicist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XGE4mdAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Neil Gemmell</a>, who will lead the international research team in Scotland, says he looks forward to “<a href="https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago686785.html">(demonstrating) the scientific process</a>.” The team plans to collect and identify free-floating DNA from creatures living in the waters of Loch Ness. But whatever the eDNA sampling finds, Gemmell <a href="http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-loch-ness-monster-dna-20180523-story.html">is well aware</a> the testing results will most likely not convince everyone.</p>
<p>A long-standing theory in social psychology helps explain why. According to <a href="https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html">cognitive dissonance theory</a>, <a href="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=3850">first developed by Leon Festinger</a> in the 1950s, people seek to avoid the internal discomfort that arises when their beliefs, attitudes or behavior come into conflict with each other or with new information. In other words, it doesn’t feel good to do something you don’t value or that contradicts your deeply held convictions. To deal with this kind of discomfort, people sometimes attempt to rationalize their beliefs and behavior.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221870/original/file-20180605-119888-ah4zjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221870/original/file-20180605-119888-ah4zjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221870/original/file-20180605-119888-ah4zjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221870/original/file-20180605-119888-ah4zjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221870/original/file-20180605-119888-ah4zjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221870/original/file-20180605-119888-ah4zjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221870/original/file-20180605-119888-ah4zjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221870/original/file-20180605-119888-ah4zjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s hard to stop waiting for an expected UFO.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/july-2017-hastings-mesa-ufolike-sunset-1090442363">Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a classic study, Festinger and colleagues <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10030-000">observed a small doomsday cult</a> in Chicago who were waiting for a UFO to save them from impending massive destruction of Earth. When the prophecy didn’t come true, instead of rejecting their original belief, members of the sect came to believe that the God of Earth changed plans and no longer wanted to destroy the planet.</p>
<p>Cult members so closely identified with the idea that a UFO was coming to rescue them that they couldn’t just let the idea go when it was proven wrong. Rather than give up on the original belief, they preferred to lessen the cognitive dissonance they were experiencing internally.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lochnesssightings.com/index.asp">Loch Ness monster true believers</a> may be just like the doomsday believers. Giving up their favorite theory could be too challenging. And yet, they’ll be sensitive to any evidence they hear about that contradicts their conviction, which creates a feeling of cognitive discomfort. To overcome the dissonance, it’s human nature to try to explain away the scientific evidence. So rather than accepting that researchers’ inability to find Nessie DNA in Loch Ness means the monster doesn’t exist, believers may rationalize that the scientists didn’t sample from the right area, or didn’t know how to identify this unknown DNA, for instance.</p>
<p>Cognitive dissonance may also provide an explanation for other science-related conspiracy theories, such as flat Earth beliefs, climate change denial and so on. It may help account for reckless descriptions of reliable media sources as “fake news.” If one’s deeply held convictions don’t fit well with what media say, it’s easier to deal with any inner discomfort by discrediting the source of the new information rather than revising one’s own convictions.</p>
<h2>Philosophy of knowledge</h2>
<p>If psychology may explain why Loch Ness Monster fans believe what they do, philosophy can explain what’s wrong with such beliefs.</p>
<p>The error here comes from an implicit assumption that to prove a claim, one has to rule out all of the conceivable alternatives – instead of all the plausible alternatives. Of course scientists haven’t and cannot deductively rule out all of the conceivable possibilities here. If to prove something you have to show that there is no conceivable alternative to your theory, then you can’t really prove much. Maybe the Loch Ness monster is an alien whose biology doesn’t include DNA.</p>
<p>So the problem is not that believers in the existence of the Loch Ness monster or climate change deniers are sloppy thinkers. Rather, they are too demanding thinkers, at least with respect to some selected claims. They adopt too-high standards for what counts as evidence, and for what is needed to prove a claim. </p>
<p>Philosophers have long known that too-high standards for knowledge and rational belief lead to skepticism. Famously, 17th century French philosopher René Descartes suggested that only “clear and distinct perceptions” should function as the required markers for knowledge. So if only some special inner feeling can guarantee knowledge and we can be wrong about that feeling – say, due to some brain damage – then what can be known?</p>
<p>This line of thought has been taken to its extreme in contemporary philosophy <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ignorance-9780198244172?cc=us&lang=en&">by Peter Unger</a>. He asserted that knowledge requires certainty; since we are not really certain of much, if anything at all, we don’t know much, if anything at all.</p>
<p>One promising way to resist a skeptic is simply not to engage in trying to prove that the thing whose existence is doubted exists. A better approach might be to start with basic knowledge: assume we know some things and can draw further consequences from them.</p>
<p>A knowledge-first approach that attempts to do exactly this has recently gained popularity in epistemology, the philosophical theory of knowledge. British <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=IH-44VwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">philosopher Timothy Williamson</a> and others <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12111">including me</a> have proposed that evidence, rationality, belief, assertion, cognitive aspects of action and so on can be explained <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/knowledge-and-its-limits-9780199256563?q=Knowledge%20and%20its%20Limits&lang=en&cc=us">in terms of knowledge</a>.</p>
<p>This idea is in contrast to an approach popular in the 20th century, that knowledge is true justified belief. But counterexamples abound that show one can have true justified belief without knowledge.</p>
<p>Say, you check your Swiss watch and it reads 11:40. You believe on this basis that it is 11:40. However, what you haven’t noticed is that your typically super reliable watch has stopped exactly 12 hours ago. And by incredible chance it happens that, now, when you check your watch, it is in fact 11:40. In this case you have a true and justified or rational belief but still, it doesn’t seem that you know that it is 11:40 – it is just by pure luck that your belief that it’s 11:40 happens to be true.</p>
<p>Our newer knowledge-first approach avoids defining knowledge altogether and rather posits knowledge as fundamental. It’s its own fundamental entity – which allows it to undercut the skeptical argument. One may not need to feel certain or have a sensation of clarity and distinctness in order to know things. The skeptical argument doesn’t get off the ground in the first place.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221868/original/file-20180605-119867-1og6e43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221868/original/file-20180605-119867-1og6e43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221868/original/file-20180605-119867-1og6e43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221868/original/file-20180605-119867-1og6e43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221868/original/file-20180605-119867-1og6e43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221868/original/file-20180605-119867-1og6e43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221868/original/file-20180605-119867-1og6e43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221868/original/file-20180605-119867-1og6e43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When it comes to science versus skeptic, evidence doesn’t always matter.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Loch-Ness-Monster/8380914232b04eba885c495dc2f946c4/2/0">AP Photo, File</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Knowledge and the skeptic</h2>
<p>The eDNA analysis of Loch Ness may not be enough to change the minds of those who are strongly committed to the existence of the lake’s monster. Psychology may help explain why. And lessons from philosophy suggest this kind of investigation may not even provide good arguments against conspiracy theorists and skeptics.</p>
<p>A different and, arguably, better argument against skepticism questions the skeptic’s own state of knowledge and rationality. Do you really know that we know nothing? If not, then there may be something we know. If yes, then we can know something and, again, you are wrong in claiming that knowledge is not attainable.</p>
<p>A strategy of this kind would challenge the evidential and psychological bases for true believers’ positive conviction in the existence of Nessie. That’s quite different from attempting to respond with scientific evidence to each possible skeptical challenge.</p>
<p>But the rejection of a few true believers doesn’t detract from the value of this kind of scientific research. First and foremost, this research is expected to produce much more precise and fine-grained knowledge of biodiversity in Loch Ness than what we have without it. Science is at its best when it avoids engaging with the skeptic directly and simply provides new knowledge and evidence. Science can be successful without ruling out all of the possibilities and without convincing everyone.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97307/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Artūrs Logins receives funding from Swiss National Science Foundation (project "New Direction for Epistemic Normativity" n. 171464, <a href="http://p3.snf.ch/project-171464">http://p3.snf.ch/project-171464</a>). </span></em></p>If you’re committed to a belief, it’s hard to let go. Psychology and philosophy provide different ways to think about how skeptics respond to counterevidence.Artūrs Logins, Visiting Postdoctoral Researcher in Philosophy, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed 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/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.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/466752015-08-31T20:07:08Z2015-08-31T20:07:08ZWhat has science ever done for us? The Knowledge Wars, reviewed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93414/original/image-20150831-25771-bce6kz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=455%2C93%2C2835%2C1991&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Electricity is only one of the marvels brought to us by science. But even that's not enough to convince some of its value.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Wyszomierski/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The deadbeat boyfriend at the centre of Janet Jackson’s 1986 hit <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9uizdKZAGE">What Have You Done For Me Lately</a> used to take Janet out to dinner almost every night. He used to do a lot of nice stuff for her. But – as the title asks – what had he done for her lately?</p>
<p>Like Janet, many people ask the same question of science. </p>
<p>Sure, since the 16th century, science has given us electricity and anaesthetics, the internet and statins, the jumbo jet, vaccines and good anti-cancer drugs, the washing machine and the automobile. But what has it done for us lately? </p>
<p>In fact, for many people, what science has done for us lately hasn’t been dancin’ till one thought one would lose one’s breath. Rather, it has delivered emotionally-charged fights over issues such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/vaccination">vaccination</a>, whether everyone should be taking <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/statins">statins</a>, anthropogenic <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/climate-change">climate change</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/gm-food">genetically modified foods</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/wind-power">wind farms</a> and high-tension <a href="https://theconversation.com/experts-criticise-study-linking-magnetic-field-exposure-to-asthma-risk-2626">power lines</a>. </p>
<p>Indeed, while most of us are happy with most of the products of science – not least our <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOH15_pqWZ4">iPods, white goods and light bulbs</a> – when it comes to some of the more contentious issues of science we’re not such a happy bunch. </p>
<p>You only have to look at comment threads on this site on articles about these topics to see just such unhappiness and disgruntlement. In such discussions, science isn’t a benign tool for understanding the natural world, but a villain intent on unleashing industries and technologies we don’t want, or forcing us to give up our SUVs or eat our broccoli. </p>
<p>In this sort of world you can understand why, when considering the state of things, many scientists have taken on slightly exasperated air.</p>
<h2>Warts and all</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=934&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=934&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=934&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1174&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1174&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1174&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Science is under attack from some quarters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Melbourne University Press</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And so Nobel Laureate and National Living Treasure <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-c-doherty-169">Peter Doherty</a> has stepped into this breach to make the case for science. His new book, <a href="https://www.mup.com.au/items/160807">The Knowledge Wars</a>, rests on the argument that we are in the midst “of a potential deadly conflict between the new knowledge based in science and the established power”. </p>
<p>That is, while science has often been in conflict with established dogma – from Charles Darwin to <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/marshall-bio.html">Barry Marshall</a> and <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/warren-bio.html">Robin Warren</a> – for the first time in a long time science finds itself pitted against powerful economic and political actors.</p>
<p>In this space, Doherty’s work seeks to provide a practical discussion of the nature of modern science with the hope that we can all take on a more evidence-based view of the world. </p>
<p>Thankfully, this isn’t a ra-ra hagiography that just drums into us that science is the best thing that’s ever happened to us since our ancestors discovered the paleo diet (though there is some of that). </p>
<p>Rather, Doherty seeks to explore how science works in modern times, warts and all. This means instead of a recitation of a high school definition of science, Doherty provides a nuanced, thoughtful discussion of the limits of peer review; the economics of publishing; the scientific culture of critique; fraud, errors and outright criminality in scientific work; and the nature of modern data collection.</p>
<p>This makes it a valuable “behind the scenes” examination of what actually happens in modern science.</p>
<h2>Renaissance again</h2>
<p>The goal in much of this is not to directly convince those who, for example, reject the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a>’s position on climate change, but to provide ammunition to those of us who find ourselves stuck in a conversation with such people. </p>
<p>We’ve all heard lines about “global conspiracies of scientists”. Yet no one who has a passing understanding of how science works could imagine getting a global community to agree on anything remotely doubtful.</p>
<p>Doherty’s central target (very much in keeping with the history of science, really) is blind acceptance of dogma based on the pronouncements of authority. Here he connects centuries of science from Galileo and Copernicus to Charles Darwin, Richard Feynmann, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren. </p>
<p>We might even point to an earlier trajectory of empirically minded iconoclasts, from <a href="http://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-the-Navigator">Prince Henry the Navigator</a> to <a href="https://youtu.be/nYcSrMEngHU?t=1458">Heraclitus the Paradoxographer</a>. Importantly, though those who reject the idea of anthropogenic climate change might point to such iconoclasts as rejecting scientific dogma, Doherty very much highlights such revolutionary work as part and parcel of the process of science. For him, <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-research-is-good-but-not-if-wind-experts-are-told-what-to-find-43625">the solution to any of the ills of science is more science</a>.</p>
<p>At times The Knowledge Wars feels like a Wikipedia binge, ranging widely and wildly through invention and events of the last 500 years (although, to be fair, that’s often how I spend my Saturday nights). And, perhaps more fundamentally, it sorely misses a nuanced take on the economic sociology and history underpinning that period. For example, although central to much of scientific and social history of the last half millennium, “capitalism” doesn’t make it to the index. </p>
<p>But the bigger lament I have after reading The Knowledge Wars is one perhaps I share with Doherty. Modern science began with the birth of Renaissance men; with individuals who understood that wise governance requires an embrace of statecraft as well as high art and the latest advances in science. </p>
<p>Yet now, the very idea of Renaissance men and women seems anathema, a foolish dream that could never happen in this crazy mixed up world we now live in. But is that really so foolish?</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The Knowledge Wars by Peter Doherty is published by Melbourne University Press and is available for A$29.99 in paperback and A$19.99 in ebook.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46675/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will J Grant receives funding from the Department of Industry and Science.</span></em></p>Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty’s new book explores why so many people today selectively reject science, and in the process gives a behind the scenes look at how science really works.Will J Grant, Researcher / Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/426182015-06-11T19:58:10Z2015-06-11T19:58:10ZBusting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84673/original/image-20150611-11433-jgr5q5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science denial can come in many forms, but you need to be careful when debunking it.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rosengrant/3810077717/in/photolist-6NFDn8-8wefXR-8whg8J-8whg8f-8vY36x-8w25u3-8whg6W-8whg5w-8whg7J-8whg6w-4pscqA-8vY364-5ww2zH-6cck8F-PcSdW-9zXB5f-5ww1aR-2xEewp-aNgtdZ-4CL6m8-phR2kc-82Ww1T-2sJfrN-iPtYe5-dNu8G-2U36r-5wAkxE-8RByF6-5wvZze-i87FGu-7Pki1V-8Y9Xgy-uT3tk-5wAmcS-fwyRFo-5wAiJw-5wvZNP-5ww2gp-5wAmmm-8PTFGc-9wPxHd-7dGoz-7dGgS-qHWq4E-3e8JF5-5La2Ce-4kCW9R-4PEzrN-kbLSNP-db8kB">Bryan Rosengrant/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It should go without saying that science should dictate how we respond to science denial. So what does scientific research tell us? </p>
<p>One effective way to reduce the influence of science denial is through “<a href="https://theconversation.com/inoculating-against-science-denial-40465">inoculation</a>”: you can build resistance to misinformation by exposing people to a weak form of the misinformation.</p>
<p>How do we practically achieve that? There are two key elements to refuting misinformation. The first half of a debunking is offering a <em>factual alternative</em>. To understand what I mean by this, you need to understand what happens in a person’s mind when you correct a misconception. </p>
<p>People build mental models of how the world works, where all the different parts of the model fit together like cogs. Imagine one of those cogs is a myth. When you explain that the myth is false, you pluck out that cog, leaving a gap in their mental model. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84634/original/image-20150611-6810-jff5e0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84634/original/image-20150611-6810-jff5e0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84634/original/image-20150611-6810-jff5e0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84634/original/image-20150611-6810-jff5e0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84634/original/image-20150611-6810-jff5e0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84634/original/image-20150611-6810-jff5e0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84634/original/image-20150611-6810-jff5e0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84634/original/image-20150611-6810-jff5e0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Debunking myths creates gaps in people’s mental models. That gap needs to be filled with an alternative fact.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">John Cook</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But people feel uncomfortable with an incomplete model. They want to feel as if they know what’s going on. So if you create a gap, you need to fill the gap with an alternative fact. </p>
<p>For example, it’s not enough to just provide evidence that a suspect in a murder trial is innocent. To prove them innocent – at least in people’s minds – you need to provide an alternative suspect.</p>
<p>However, it’s not enough to simply explain the facts. The golden rule of debunking, from the book <a href="http://heathbrothers.com/books/made-to-stick/">Made To Stick</a>, by Chip and Dan Heath, is to fight sticky myths with even stickier facts. So you need to make your science <em>sticky</em>, meaning simple, concrete messages that grab attention and stick in the memory. </p>
<p>How do you make science sticky? Chip and Dan Heath suggest the acronym SUCCES to summarise the characteristics of sticky science:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Simple:</strong> To paraphrase a quote from Nobel prize winner Ernest Rutherford: if you can’t explain your physics simply, it’s probably not very good physics.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Unexpected:</strong> If your science is counter-intuitive, embrace it! Use the unexpectedness to take people by surprise.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Credible:</strong> Ideally, source your information from the most credible source of information available: peer-reviewed scientific research.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Concrete:</strong> One of the most powerful tools to make abstract science concrete is analogies or metaphors.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Emotional:</strong> Scientists are trained to remove emotion from their science. However, even scientists are human and it can be quite powerful when we express our passion for science or communicate how our results affect us personally.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Stories:</strong> Shape your science into a compelling narrative.</p></li>
</ul>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TM-zNO02phw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Mythbusting</h2>
<p>Let’s say you’ve put in the hard yards and shaped your science into a simple, concrete, sticky message. Congratulations, you’re halfway there! As well as explaining why the facts are right, you also need to explain why the myth is wrong. But there’s a psychological danger to be wary of when refuting misinformation.</p>
<p>When you mention a myth, you make people more familiar with it. But the more familiar people are with a piece of information, the more likely they are to think it’s true. This means you risk a “<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-Part-2-Familiarity-Backfire-Effect.html">familiarity backfire effect</a>”, reinforcing the myth in people’s minds.</p>
<p>There are several simple techniques to avoid the familiarity backfire effect. First, put the emphasis on the facts rather than the myth. Lead with the science you wish to communicate rather than the myth. Unfortunately, most debunking articles take the worst possible approach: repeat the myth in the headline.</p>
<p>Second, provide an explicit warning before mentioning the myth. This puts people cognitively on guard so they’re less likely to be influenced by the myth. An explicit warning can be as simple as “A common myth is…”.</p>
<p>Third, explain the fallacy that the myth uses to distort the facts. This gives people the ability to reconcile the facts with the myth. A useful framework for identifying fallacies is the <a href="http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2">five characteristics of science denial</a> (which includes a number of characteristics, particularly under logical fallacies):</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84632/original/image-20150610-6814-m26fe9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84632/original/image-20150610-6814-m26fe9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84632/original/image-20150610-6814-m26fe9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84632/original/image-20150610-6814-m26fe9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84632/original/image-20150610-6814-m26fe9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84632/original/image-20150610-6814-m26fe9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84632/original/image-20150610-6814-m26fe9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84632/original/image-20150610-6814-m26fe9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Five characteristics of science denial.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">John Cook</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Pulling this all together, if you debunk misinformation with an article, presentation or even in casual conversation, try to lead with a sticky fact. Before you mention the myth, warn people that you’re about to mention a myth. Then explain the fallacy that the myth uses to distort the facts.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wfq0Xrgsn_4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Putting into practice</h2>
<p>Let me give an example of this debunking technique in action. Say someone says to you that global warming is a myth. Here’s how you might respond:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm">97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming</a>. This has been found in a number of studies, using independent methods. A <a href="http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf">2009 survey</a> conducted by the University of Illinois found that among actively publishing climate scientists, 97.4% agreed that human activity was increasing global temperatures. A <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract">2010 study</a> from Princeton University analysed public statements about climate change and found that among scientists who had published peer-reviewed research about climate change, 97.5% agreed with the consensus. </p>
<p>I was part of a team that in 2013 found that among relevant climate papers published over 21 years, <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024">97.1% affirmed human-caused global warming</a>.</p>
<p>However, one myth argues that there is no scientific consensus on climate change, <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm">citing a petition of 31,000 dissenting scientists</a>. This myth uses the technique of fake experts: 99.9% of those 31,000 scientists are not climate scientists. The qualification to be listed in the petition is a science degree, so that the list includes computer scientists, engineers and medical scientists, but very few with actual expertise in climate science.</p>
<p>And there you have it.</p>
<p>In our online course, <a href="http://edx.org/understanding-climate-denial">Making Sense of Climate Science Denial</a>, we debunk 50 of the most common myths about climate change. Each lecture adopts the Fact-Myth-Fallacy structure where we first explain the science, then introduce the myth then explain the fallacy that the myth uses. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ0xTCDNnmo&list=PL-Xgw8LFaM3BJOXYnQKAtj6-4xOwACFV3">our sixth week on the psychology of debunking</a>, we also stress the importance of an evidence-based approach to science communication itself. It would be most ironic, after all, if we were to ignore the science in our response to science denial.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42618/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook 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>Debunking science denial in the wrong way can end up reinforcing it. Here’s how to cut through make the facts stick.John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/226412014-02-05T19:53:43Z2014-02-05T19:53:43ZThe truth is out there – so how do you debunk a myth?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40711/original/sj9kyvgr-1391561386.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The truth is out there.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmpznz/10545466215/sizes/h/">Flickr/J</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Debunking myths requires an understanding of the psychological research into misinformation. But getting your refutation out in front of lots of eyeballs is a whole other matter.</p>
<p>Here, I look at two contrasting case studies in debunking climate myths.</p>
<p>If you don’t do it right, you run the risk of actually reinforcing the myth. Fortunately, there are a number of steps you can take to avoid any potential backfire effects.</p>
<h2>Facts vs myths</h2>
<p>First and foremost, you need to emphasise the key facts you wish to communicate rather than the myth. Otherwise, you risk making people more familiar with the myth than with the correct facts.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40597/original/wrxk3qg5-1391490002.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40597/original/wrxk3qg5-1391490002.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40597/original/wrxk3qg5-1391490002.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=660&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40597/original/wrxk3qg5-1391490002.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=660&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40597/original/wrxk3qg5-1391490002.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=660&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40597/original/wrxk3qg5-1391490002.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=829&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40597/original/wrxk3qg5-1391490002.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=829&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40597/original/wrxk3qg5-1391490002.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=829&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Duty calls.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://xkcd.com/386/">xkcd.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That doesn’t mean avoid mentioning the myth altogether. You have to activate it in people’s minds before they can label it as wrong.</p>
<p>Secondly, you need to replace the myth with an alternate narrative. This is usually an explanation of why the myth is wrong or how it came about. Essentially, debunking is creating a gap in people’s minds (removing the myth) then filling that gap (with the correct explanation).</p>
<p>If you had to boil down all the psychological research into six words then it can be <a href="http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/1400064287excerpt.html">summed up</a> as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>fight sticky ideas with stickier ideas.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Myths are persistent, stubborn and memorable. To dislodge a myth, you need to counter it with an even more compelling, memorable fact.</p>
<h2>The skeptical plan</h2>
<p>With that principle in mind, the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/">Skeptical Science</a> team set out to debunk two climate myths in 2013. We were guided by cognitive psychology as we constructed our rebuttals.</p>
<p>In both cases, we sought a different path to our usual social media practice of immediate blogging, tweeting and Facebook and looked for something that would have a long-term impact.</p>
<h2>Case Study 1: Communicating the scientific consensus on climate change</h2>
<p>We decided to tackle arguably the most destructive climate myth of all, that there is <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm">no scientific consensus</a> about human-caused global warming.</p>
<p>This misconception has grave consequences for society. When the public think that scientists don’t agree on human-caused global warming, they’re <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0704-9">less likely to support</a> policies to mitigate climate change.</p>
<p>We decided to increase awareness of the scientific consensus with a three-pronged approach:</p>
<ol>
<li>scholarly research</li>
<li>mainstream media coverage</li>
<li>social media outreach.</li>
</ol>
<p>The Skeptical Science team spent about a year doing the scholarly research - reading the abstracts of 12,000 climate papers published from 1991 to 2011. We identified around 4000 abstracts stating a position on human-caused global warming and among those papers, more than <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051">97% endorsed</a> the consensus.</p>
<h2>The media message</h2>
<p>When our research was <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024">published</a> in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters, the University of Queensland and the universities of my co-authors issued <a href="http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2013/05/study-shows-scientists-agree-humans-cause-global-warming">media releases</a> describing our work.</p>
<p>The release was constructed with the psychology of misinformation in mind. The emphasis was on the key fact we wished to communicate: 97% agreement among relevant climate papers.</p>
<p>But we also activated the misconception by mentioning survey data finding low public perception of scientific agreement. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40579/original/h9bdry6d-1391485952.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40579/original/h9bdry6d-1391485952.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40579/original/h9bdry6d-1391485952.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40579/original/h9bdry6d-1391485952.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40579/original/h9bdry6d-1391485952.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40579/original/h9bdry6d-1391485952.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40579/original/h9bdry6d-1391485952.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40579/original/h9bdry6d-1391485952.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Consensus on human caused global warming.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=90">Skeptical Science</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The result was media coverage <a href="http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/01/uq-climate-change-paper-has-whole-world-talking">all over the world</a>, including many non-English speaking countries.</p>
<p>At the same time, we launched <a href="http://www.theconsensusproject.com">The Consensus Project</a> website that explained the results of our paper with clear, simple animations. We released a series of shareable <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?c=6">infographics</a>, making it easy for people to share our results on social media. </p>
<p>Our goal was for the message of scientific consensus to push beyond people already engaged with the climate issue, and raise awareness among people who had no idea that there was 97% agreement among climate scientists.</p>
<h2>Obama hears the message</h2>
<p>We achieved this goal beyond our expectations when President Obama <a href="https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/335089477296988160">tweeted our research</a> to 31-million followers.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40627/original/48nzggj2-1391495677.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40627/original/48nzggj2-1391495677.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40627/original/48nzggj2-1391495677.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40627/original/48nzggj2-1391495677.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40627/original/48nzggj2-1391495677.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40627/original/48nzggj2-1391495677.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40627/original/48nzggj2-1391495677.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40627/original/48nzggj2-1391495677.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Obama tweet on 97 per cent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/335089477296988160">Twitter</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>His tweet was retweeted over 2,500 times. Several weeks after the tweet, Obama gave a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change">landmark speech</a> on climate change in which he acknowledged the 97% consensus.</p>
<p>This exercise taught us that while social media is the future, old media isn’t dead yet. And perhaps the sum of the two are greater than their individual parts.</p>
<h2>Case Study 2: Communicating our planet’s heat build-up</h2>
<p>The second myth we tackled was the mistaken belief that <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm">global warming has stopped</a>. This myth has many variants, such as “global warming stopped 15, 16 or 17 years ago” (the time period varies) or “no statistically significant warming since 1998”.</p>
<p>Typically, scientists respond to the “no warming” myth using statistical explanations that go over the heads of most people. How do you debunk this myth in a compelling, memorable way?</p>
<p>Global warming is a build up in heat. Greenhouse gases are trapping heat which is building up in our oceans, warming the land and air and melting ice. When scientists add up all the energy accumulating in our climate system, they find the heat build-up hasn’t slowed since 1998.</p>
<p>The greenhouse effect continues to blaze away. It turns out the laws of physics didn’t go on hiatus 16 years ago.</p>
<h2>Creating a metaphor</h2>
<p>To communicate this, we used a metaphor. We toyed with many metaphor ideas but found none able to conceptualise the heat build-up in a stickier manner more than this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Since 1998, our planet has been building up heat at a rate of 4 Hiroshima A-bombs per second.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We released a website with an <a href="http://4hiroshimas.com">animated ticker</a> widget to show how much heat our planet is building up each second. The widget, which can be freely embeded on other websites, also includes a number of other metrics such as the amount of energy in hurricane Sandy, an earthquake and a million lightning bolts.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40333/original/xnf4zmn3-1391323624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40333/original/xnf4zmn3-1391323624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40333/original/xnf4zmn3-1391323624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40333/original/xnf4zmn3-1391323624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40333/original/xnf4zmn3-1391323624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40333/original/xnf4zmn3-1391323624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=706&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40333/original/xnf4zmn3-1391323624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=706&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40333/original/xnf4zmn3-1391323624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=706&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A snapshot of the widget showing the planetary heat imbalance using Hiroshima A-bombs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skeptical Science</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unlike traditional social media campaigns that flare brightly then quickly fade away, the widget steadily and incrementally increases the number of people it reaches.</p>
<p>Since it was released in November it has been embedded in a <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/widget-million.html">number of blogs</a>. The figures continue to grow with latest showing it used by more than 80 blogs and viewed more than 2-million times.</p>
<p>We knew the Hiroshima metaphor would be controversial but several factors influenced our decision to use it. One was that distinguished climate scientist <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/">James Hansen</a> had been using the <a href="http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/2012/05/15/global-warming-increasing-400000-atomic-bombs-every-day">metaphor for years</a>.</p>
<p>Another was an <a href="http://www.thebulletin.org/how-many-hiroshimas-does-it-take-describe-climate-change">article</a> by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a prestigious journal founded in the 1950s to warn of the dangers of nuclear weapons. The Bulletin endorsed the use of the Hiroshima metaphor as a compelling way to communicate the reality of global warming.</p>
<p>But ultimately, the cognitive science told us this was the most compelling way to refute the “hiatus” myth.</p>
<p>As expected, the widget provoked a strong reaction, predominantly from those already dismissive of climate science (and keen to prop up the “global warming stopped in 1998” myth).</p>
<h2>A less explosive metaphor</h2>
<p>I put the challenge out there to come up with a better metaphor to conceptualise the amount of heat that our planet is accumulating. No viable alternatives have come forward.</p>
<p>However, at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in December, I proposed a tongue-in-cheek metaphor that I thought may get away with offending no one: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/17/climate-change-agu2013-pictures">kitten sneezes</a>!</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40331/original/zvt3wdmz-1391322540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40331/original/zvt3wdmz-1391322540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40331/original/zvt3wdmz-1391322540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40331/original/zvt3wdmz-1391322540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40331/original/zvt3wdmz-1391322540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40331/original/zvt3wdmz-1391322540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40331/original/zvt3wdmz-1391322540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40331/original/zvt3wdmz-1391322540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Showing the planetary heat imbalance in units of kitten sneezes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skeptical Science</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Two communication outreaches by <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/">Skeptical Science</a> in 2013 took wildly different approaches but with the same goal. One adopted a top-down approach, attempting to reach the public through scholarly research and mainstream media. The other took a bottom-up approach, raising awareness through a widget embedded on a wide range of blogs.</p>
<p>Both were based on the <a href="http://psi.sagepub.com/content/13/3/106.full?ijkey=FNCpLYuivUOHE&keytype=ref&siteid=sppsi">psychological research into debunking</a>. Both were conceived as slow burn communication, with both achieving long-term impact.</p>
<p><em>This is an edited version of John Cook’s presentation Combating a two decade misinformation against the scientific consensus on climate change, delivered this week at the Australian Science Communicators <a href="http://2014conf.asc.asn.au">national conference</a> in Brisbane.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22641/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook created and maintains the Skeptical Science website.</span></em></p>Debunking myths requires an understanding of the psychological research into misinformation. But getting your refutation out in front of lots of eyeballs is a whole other matter. Here, I look at two contrasting…John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.