3 ms·

I only skimmed this article, NS is not one of my favorite publications, and publishing an article about "denialism" on a site ostensibly devoted to science jou

I only skimmed this article, NS is not one of my favorite publications, and publishing an article about "denialism" on a site ostensibly devoted to science journalism does not raise its stature with me. I did find this little gem about halfway into the article "... denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust". I have enough education to follow most scientific arguments at some level. I don't have enough higher math to follow string theory, for instance, but I can understand pandemics, one of the prime examples in the article. When science relies on trust, is it still science? I'm also bothered that this article seems to lump anyone on the "wrong" side of a scientific debate as a "denialist".

scott_s 16y ago
Science doesn't rely on trust. But for those that consume the result of science, it sometimes does rely on trust of the scientific method and the scientists themselves. The example given in the article is a good one: we can observe antibiotics in action, so we don't need to trust anyone that they work. We can observe people get better on them. But with vaccines, the point is to not get sick in the first place. Most individuals will never have the opportunity to observe that they work since they are preventative. Again, the science itself does not rely on trust. It's the non-scientists who must trust something they will likely never observe themselves.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- a-priori 16y ago
  To misquote Churchill: "Science is the worst form of learning about the world except for all those others that have been tried." Science isn't perfect. Far from it. But at it's best it's a very effective way of learning about the world we live in. At its worst, it's still better than any alternatives we've found so far.
Locke1689 16y ago
I think the issue is that many people don't have the basic science or mathematics skills to even follow along. For example, combinatorial explosion is a very basic concept but I wouldn't have trouble believing that the majority of the US public wouldn't be able to grasp its consequences. However I think that you may be inflating the degree to which we understand other fields a bit. I have taken just enough advanced physics to know that I know absolutely nothing about physics. Similarly for chemistry, biology, climatology, etc. My major is computer science so I would wager that I have a better than average knowledge in that field, but there are even some subfields in computer science (e.g., complexity theory) where I would be completely lost. I think the concept in play here is what I like to call the "hard science condition." That is, people who are a member of the hard sciences or technical fields have a tendency to believe that because they have a good comprehension of a difficult subject they have a good comprehension of many difficult subjects (including other technical fields). This seems to me to be a logical fallacy because very rarely have the exhibitors actually put in the many years of work that would be required to really understand the field. In this way we all have to defer to experts at some point--that is, we must trust their results. This is why I think a scientific consensus is so important. When we must defer to experts it's important to be able to figure out what the experts are saying.
jboydyhacker 16y ago
I think this is a good comment. Some scientific viewpoints stand for a long time as commonly accepted views then are proven wrong later. Sometimes the denialists are right and I think a more interesting article is why do humans subscribe to groupthink so easily?
- carussell 16y ago
  What are some of your favorite examples of this?
wrs 16y ago
The distinction between skepticism and denial is found in the process, not the conclusion. Believing vaccines cause autism doesn't make you a "denier", but the reasons why you believe it may. This is addressed in the article right next door: "Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic" (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000-living-in-denial-when-a-sceptic-isnt-a-sceptic.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000-living-in...) "Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact."
thaumaturgy 16y ago
You took that quote completely out of context, and have argued against that quote out of context, in the classic strawman way, and yet you're currently the highest-rated comment in this thread. This is embarrassing.

scott_s 16y ago

Science doesn't rely on trust. But for those that consume the result of science, it sometimes does rely on trust of the scientific method and the scientists themselves. The example given in the article is a good one: we can observe antibiotics in action, so we don't need to trust anyone that they work. We can observe people get better on them. But with vaccines, the point is to not get sick in the first place. Most individuals will never have the opportunity to observe that they work since they are preventative. Again, the science itself does not rely on trust. It's the non-scientists who must trust something they will likely never observe themselves.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
a-priori 16y ago
To misquote Churchill: "Science is the worst form of learning about the world except for all those others that have been tried." Science isn't perfect. Far from it. But at it's best it's a very effective way of learning about the world we live in. At its worst, it's still better than any alternatives we've found so far.

Locke1689 16y ago

I think the issue is that many people don't have the basic science or mathematics skills to even follow along. For example, combinatorial explosion is a very basic concept but I wouldn't have trouble believing that the majority of the US public wouldn't be able to grasp its consequences. However I think that you may be inflating the degree to which we understand other fields a bit. I have taken just enough advanced physics to know that I know absolutely nothing about physics. Similarly for chemistry, biology, climatology, etc. My major is computer science so I would wager that I have a better than average knowledge in that field, but there are even some subfields in computer science (e.g., complexity theory) where I would be completely lost. I think the concept in play here is what I like to call the "hard science condition." That is, people who are a member of the hard sciences or technical fields have a tendency to believe that because they have a good comprehension of a difficult subject they have a good comprehension of many difficult subjects (including other technical fields). This seems to me to be a logical fallacy because very rarely have the exhibitors actually put in the many years of work that would be required to really understand the field. In this way we all have to defer to experts at some point--that is, we must trust their results. This is why I think a scientific consensus is so important. When we must defer to experts it's important to be able to figure out what the experts are saying.

jboydyhacker 16y ago

I think this is a good comment. Some scientific viewpoints stand for a long time as commonly accepted views then are proven wrong later. Sometimes the denialists are right and I think a more interesting article is why do humans subscribe to groupthink so easily?

carussell 16y ago
What are some of your favorite examples of this?

wrs 16y ago

The distinction between skepticism and denial is found in the process, not the conclusion. Believing vaccines cause autism doesn't make you a "denier", but the reasons why you believe it may. This is addressed in the article right next door: "Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic" (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000-living-in-denial-when-a-sceptic-isnt-a-sceptic.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000-living-in...) "Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact."

thaumaturgy 16y ago

You took that quote completely out of context, and have argued against that quote out of context, in the classic strawman way, and yet you're currently the highest-rated comment in this thread. This is embarrassing.