Who needs experts?

Why do people seem to trust pseudoscience, like claims that tumors are really a fungus, yet not believe that scientists and doctors can easily tell the difference between a human cell and a fungal cell? (and that they could too if they simply learned how to use a microscope?) Why do they believe in conspiracies that say mainstream American cancer treatment is part of a eugenics program to breed perfect people from wealthy American bloodlines, yet forget that cancer research is global and people outside the US would have noticed by now if everything known about cancer was a lie? Are we as a country that self-centered? Why do people think they can pick and choose which experts to believe and which to not, or which information FROM THE SAME EXPERTS to accept and which to reject? Climatologists, geologist, earth scientist, etc. are correct when they say the climate changed a lot in the past, but they’re wrong when they say it’s changing now? Or they’re correct about the causes of climate change in the past, but not now? Why do they think they know more than people who’ve spent years studying a topic or field? Why do people think reading a few blogs or popular science books on any topic is all it takes to really understand something? Why do people think ignoring information they don’t like is the best way to deal with it - “I went to a museum and refused to look at the exhibits I disagree with, so I have no idea what information they gave, but I’m sure they’re wrong!” (I have a friend who refused to look at museum exhibits on early humans so she could continue to deny what was there).  Why do the people who claim science “indoctrinates” rather than teaches critical thinking, who have never learned science in the first place, have so much power over how science is used and taught?  Why is being educated associated with “elitism” and educated people so distrusted to know even their own field? Do we have some kind of phobia of education? Why do people distrust authorities (experts, not something like police) in general? Sure people can misuse information for their own gain, but certainly people can misuse ignorance as well (see above examples, esp. the tumor=fungus because they’re a similar color), and what reason is there to believe experts are likely to manipulate others with their knowledge anyway? Do we just fear each other that much? (I think I’ll get into this idea later)

By all means, think for yourself, figure out what makes sense and what doesn’t, be skeptical (not cynical), and figure out what’s useful and what isn’t. Science isn’t about blindly believing everything an expert tells you, but about being able to critically assess things for yourself. But there is an element of trust in your fellow human beings necessary. You can’t know everything, it would be unreasonable to even try, but you should be able to assess whether a person knows what they’re talking about based on more than just if you like what they have to say or not. People different from yourself are not monsters. If the information you accept always conforms to what you already think and never challenges you to change your position or even really think about it, there might be a problem. No one is that perfectly knowledgeable about the world.

I wasn't going to put this entry up yet, but I read this article http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622 and the contrast of this exerpt:

"This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged 'unequivocal.'"

with the comments left simply denying the information above pushed me to post it now.

The Scientific Method 2

(If you know who I'm talking about, the timing's a strange, unfortunate coincidence...I wrote this weeks ago)

Two years ago, I was told that atheists (read: non-Christians/Jews) can’t be moral because (Christian/Jewish) God gave people morals, so if you don’t believe in (Christian/Jewish) God, you can’t possibly have them. I’m going to use this statement to illustrate how the scientific method is useful in non-science applications and well as support my claim that beliefs are proposed hypotheses (either because they can’t be supported for lack of information*, haven’t yet been supported, or have been found to be unsupported but are accepted anyway). This is not meant to be a value assessment of beliefs—everyone has them and they can serve important purposes, especially in areas that can’t be supported or refuted—just a clarification of what beliefs are, as well as a demonstration of the value of a scientific-minded perspective.

(*”information” as I'm using it here refers to physical world data that can be gathered or discovered by or shown to any and all relevant parties. I may need to come back to this idea about what is information later.)

The Scientific Method:

Initial Observations and Question/Problem

Hypothesis         ß----------------------------------

Experiment                                                      |

Results/Analysis                                             |

Conclusion: Accept or Reject Hypothesis ___|

Share Findings

Observations and Question:

A philosophical/ethical question with real world implications: The Bible says morality comes from God; what does this mean for Christians and non Christians?

(Whether or not is it true that the Bible says this doesn’t really matter. This is the understanding of the person who began the following thought, and I will accept it since this is not intended to be a Theology discussion. As I hope I’ll show, the outcome should be the same whether this information is correct or not because it’s not what is being evaluated.)

Using logic, a good idea, especially in philosophy where things often can’t be tested: If morals came from God, and a person doesn’t believe in God, then can they believe in the things or be influenced by things that come from God?

Hypothesis:

These are what the Scientific Method is evaluating, and all alternatives or testable possibilities should be clear:

H1: No, they cannot (implicit: Only Christians can have morals).  (This is as far as the initiator of this thought got, it is her belief)

H2: Yes they can (implicit: Anyone can have the same morals).

Experiment:

Do research: Read various philosophy/ethics texts from different points of view, go back to see what more the Bible has to say, survey/talk to people about their morality/views, observe how people behave/treat each other.

Results/Analysis:

Ethics has been an important concern in all cultures, not just Christian ones, for as far back as we have texts to read, and many have had similarities in their moral codes, even if they believe in a different god.

Bible talks about the “good Samaritan”

Most people care about being good to each other, but be careful with phasing of questions, and be sure you’ve interacted with a random sample of people (ie: you aren’t focusing on people clearly on the fringe or only belonging to one group)

Most people act reasonably nice to each other (be careful with using news sources for observation, they tend to focus only on the negative)

Conclusion:

Non-Christians show evidence of being ethical (note that this says nothing about why that is): H1 rejected, H2 accepted. We often call this a “belief” for lack of a better word, but an accepted hypothesis is fundamentally different from a proposed hypothesis because it is a conclusion reached using all relevant and available information. It is not set in stone, but it can come close if there is little to no known information refuting it. (“Available” meaning accessible within reason: it is not reasonable for an average person to travel all over the world interviewing people for something like this, but it is reasonable to talk to friends or go to the library)

Share Findings:

Now you may use this information when interacting with people, sharing opinions, philosophizing, or talking about your views.

Where the person who made the initial claim went wrong: She treated her reasoning (Observation) as the Experiment/Results and her Hypothesis (H1) as the Conclusion, and so when she shared her perspective, it came out insulting and ignorant because she was lacking information about non-Jews/Christians’ behaviors and ideas. Reasoning is an important part of the Results/Analysis step, but people need to incorporate all available information and can’t skip over steps or leave out obvious sources of information. Observing people’s behavior and interacting with them is easily done, a part of daily life, really (assuming you’re not antisocial) and requires no special skills, so there is no reason not to use that form of information gathering. Even if her thought process had followed a Scientific Method-style of thinking based solely on her initial understanding and nothing else, further observations should have conflicted with her only hypothesis (H1), prompting her to reject it and go back to the beginning and start over, incorporating any new information from the initial Experiment step. You can’t stop and ignore all new information once you reach a conclusion because you can’t know everything; the Scientific Method is unending. And, fortunately, none of this should threaten her religious views because it does not deny that God gave people morality – It doesn’t address where morality comes from at all. Her exact interpretation of what that means for *other* people may need to change, but she herself does not need to, except to be a little more open minded and nicer to others.

Of course, no one I hope actually goes step by step like this outside of science, where every part of the process must be clearly spelled out for others to follow and hopefully find acceptable as well. It would be entirely too tedious to do this for everyday interactions and understandings; we’re not attempting to contribute to the general knowledge of the world in our daily interpersonal reactions - we don’t need that level of rigor. Instead, my purpose here is to demonstrate the importance of recognizing where your understanding of something falls in relation to available information, when you need and can easily find more information, the limitations of your own knowledge, and present a systematic way to do that. A good understanding of the Scientific Method can allow a person to incorporate it into his/her way of accessing and interacting with the world.

The Scientific Method

Do students learn the Scientific Method in school? I learned it in 2^nd or 3^rd grade, but I had an abnormally good science education in elementary school. I did learn it in public school, though, and not a science-focused private or charter school, so I see no reason for my education to have been anything special. So do others learn it, I mean really learn it and incorporate it as a tool for drawing conclusions about things in the world? It’s the heart of what scientific thinking is and is an important part of critical thinking in general, not just within science. In fields like anthropology or psychology, which are not considered “hard” sciences, the Scientific Method has to be tweaked because rigorous systematic testing of people, their behaviors, cultures, etc. often isn’t ethical, but the essence of following the logical process of observing, reasoning, testing ideas, drawing conclusions, continually incorporating and updating new information, and so forth, is still there, as it should be. Because of its flexibility, I see no reason why it can’t apply in some form to non-academic thinking either.

I suspect it is not taught, at least not well. Most people think of science as a collection of facts and tediousness first, and a process for learning about the world second, if at all. They don’t seem to question how these facts are discovered or concluded--where these facts come from. And when the facts change, as is especially true in medicine, they get upset. But change (evolution, if you will) is a sign that the Scientific Method is being used. Some facts are well-established and don’t change much, but often the details surrounding those facts are constantly being updated as more or new information or ways of looking at it are found. The process is designed to take into account the reality that we don’t know everything, although we don’t know nothing either. People in science know this; they would have nothing to do if they thought everything was known and nowhere to start if they thought nothing was known. And by design, the starting information can even be incorrect (to a point at least)-important since you wouldn’t know if you're correct ahead of time-if you’re constantly learning and incorporating, eventually, you will get better information.

Outside of science, I consider being able to change or refine your own opinions or positions healthy, not flip-flopping, as some would call it. It means you’re incorporating new information and adapting to it, and you don’t think you know everything. Sometimes people say the change is for the “wrong” reasons, like a politician changing his or her position to whatever is popular, rather than what’s “right”, or a teenager trying to fit it with a new group of friends. But what I think people really mean by a “right” or “wrong” reason is whether the person’s values have actually changed with new information and they truly support their new position (generally accepted as “right”), or whether they only value their own power or popularity, not the thing they claim to have an opinion on, or have compromised their true values (generally accepted as “wrong”). One possible way to determine the difference to me seems to be to just ask them what this new information is that caused them to change. If they have been thinking critically too, they probably can explain their thought process.

I’m not claiming that coming to conclusions is as simple as I’m making it out to be or that you always come to the “correct” conclusion (if there is such a thing), and thinking systematically and logically takes practice. But that’s the value of learning science starting early on. Critical thinking is valuable and helps tremendously when you come across something new or different. In leads us to new ideas and information and ways of being and interacting in the world. And knowing what information you’ve incorporated and what information you’ve found unhelpful or irrelevant helps when explaining your positions and views. There are presumably other ways to do this as well, other ways to learn to think critically, analyze, and use new information. But the Scientific Method is tremendously important to the modern world we live in and surprisingly simple. In biology, being able to adapt is considered essential to life. I don’t think human life is an exception.

I'll layout the Scientific Method and give a non-science example next.