Choice: Science Or Ignorance
There is no shortage of examples regarding individuals demonstrating disdain for experts, scientists and academicians
I recently saw an article about a science topic in the NY Times with the following sub-head: Those with the least understanding of science oppose it the most and also think they know the most, a study shows. Well, no news here. There is no shortage of examples regarding individuals demonstrating disdain for experts, scientists and academicians. They band together to protest while ignoring data, statistical analysis and scientific methodology.
No rational pragmatist would participate in such foolishness. But rationality is uncommon among those who fear change and the anxiety that accompanies the failure of wishful thinking. Denial (and sometimes anger) replace the willingness and ability to discern the difference between the veracity of science and the making-it-up of ignorance. This circumstance is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, which says a lack of knowledge leaves some without the contextual information necessary to recognize reality and incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.
I’m reminded of the metaphor of the frog sitting in a pot of heating water, unaware of its fate. It is blissfully ignorant of the consequences of staying where it is. It doesn’t know what it doesn’t know and it doesn’t care. People are sometimes no different, denying the safety and value of vaccines, denying the certain dangers of human-driven climate change, denying the ominous loss of biodiversity. Of course, purposeful ignorance is not going to change reality. It never does.
There is a general consensus that science is not communicating with non-scientists effectively, probably a result of the knowledge deficit model common to scientific explanations. This model says that a lack of public support for good policies — as a result of good science — is simply a lack of scientific information. A more likely model is that the public may not process information in the same way as scientists, who need to be educated about communication skills that offer better insight and explanation of science.
Not that this is really a science and scientist problem. This is more a lack of critical thinking, attention to the obvious and functional awareness problem. Want proof? Every time someone dismisses climate change because there has been climate change during the earth’s 4.5 billion years, they are guilty of a logical fallacy: because of this, therefore that. They are almost certainly not aware of what a logical fallacy is, and they are demonstrably illogical. They don’t know what they don’t know.
Put simply, climate change is not uniform but differs, often significantly, in terms of origin, duration and degree. And the current version is the only one with billions of humans occupying industrialized societies around the planet — significantly altering the thin layer of atmosphere between the earth’s surface and the transition to space. In addition, we now have highly effective computer models regarding climate and weather. We know what is all but certain to happen in coming decades.
For doubters and deniers it can require a level of proof that hurts before comprehending the obvious. Such proof would include extremes of temperature, unstable weather systems, flooding, fires, melting ice at poles, increasing numbers of tornadoes where once rare, rising tides…you know, the predictions of climate scientists. When it hurts enough, the deniers become concerned and then worried. Anxiety can be a motivator. Or not. The motives for denial are often irrational, selfish, ideological — overriding intelligence and wisdom.
Many skeptics experience pseudo-epiphanies. They hear or read the nonsensical ramblings of someone who denies what is functionally undeniable — often using pseudo-science — and then become ignorant believers. I’ve noted many times that while everyone has the right to their opinions, not all opinions are equal and no one has a right to their own facts. The less one knows about science, the less one knows about many things. Science and ignorance are conversely linked. As one goes up the other absolutely goes down.
Science can be imperfect because scientists can be imperfect…or even (rarely) dishonest. But the reality is that a confidence level of 95+ percent can be justified when comparing science to what people choose as alternative “facts.” A little over a year ago I wrote here that the earth will survive and actually improve if humans cannot survive the climate they created and then refused to mitigate effectively. Extinction has changed life on this planet multiple times, and there’s no reason to assume it won’t happen again.
