5 ms·

Belief should not be optional in the face of well-supported scientific conclusions. The problem is it's easy to mistake un-supported conclusions for well-suppor

Belief should not be optional in the face of well-supported scientific conclusions. The problem is it's easy to mistake un-supported conclusions for well-supported conclusions.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>Belief should not be optional in the face of well-supported scientific conclusions. What if I don't trust the scientists doing the work, or the larger system that they work in? What if I find the common incarnation of the entire field lacking? I do not trust much published by sociology, regardless of how many studies show results, because of the political nature of the field. On the other hand, physicist who say they found a new particle? I don't have an once of doubt (though maybe I should have a little). Part of the problem is that the very language used in sociology is crafted to reached the desired findings. Once the integrity of an entire field has been lost, what can be done to restore it?
thehardsphere 9y ago
Part of the way we go from "un-supported conclusions" to "well-supported conclusions" is by the optional nature of belief. Because belief is optional, the proponents actually have to go to the effort of supporting their conclusions with evidence. When believing something becomes non-optional, the incentive to do that goes out the window, and conclusions generally become weaker.
- jdoliner 9y ago
  To wit, it shouldn't be too surprising that the "scientist" who tells people that belief in his work is non-optional is the one who didn't bother to check if it's actually true.
jdoliner 9y ago
> Belief should not be optional What does that mean in real terms? What do you propose doing to those people who take the option of not believing? If the answer is nothing then belief is indeed optional.
- tepe1 9y ago
  You simply stop talking to them. In the real world when people begin spouting nonsense they are ejected from the community almost immediately. At elite institutions claims to not "believe" the Western synthesis are met with global permaban. (You literally have to leave the West and go to Russia or Africa.) Online of course the situation is very different. Bans ate impossible and people are free to believe everything.
- smhost 9y ago
  disinvited to social events, placed lower on the mate selection hierarchy, opinions not taken seriously, media makes fun of them, all the normal ways culture shapes behavior.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
MichaelBurge 9y ago
I'm not really sure what you mean by "not optional", but my interpretation is "Anyone who disagrees with the reigning philosopher-kings will be fined, jailed, or shot". I suppose there's ostracism for a non-state solution. So if you're a business, maybe once a year you make all of your employees measure some toads, and if they can't apply a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test correctly on the first try they're immediately fired and added to a shared blacklist. How exactly are you handling enforcement?
- jdoliner 9y ago
  More likely they'll be branded as "not believing in science" and unpersoned. But yes, this comment is spot on.
smsm42 9y ago
Then the rule is "you should unquestionably believe in claims from the set A, but not from the set B, and there's no way we can tell for each case to which set it belongs. But we will always claim it's A". Not a very objective or useful rule.
DonbunEf7 9y ago
I will believe as soon as you justify the correct answer to the demarcation problem. If you don't have an answer, then I'm free to interpret scientific results in my own way, including disbelief. C'mon, use logic and reason.
njarboe 9y ago
Good scientists have a well tuned sense of how much to doubt and believe various ideas. Some things can be determined to be true to high confidence and are most certainly true. Physicists try to get five or six sigma. For the LIGO black hole merger detection you get a statement like, "The signal was observed with a matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 24 and a false alarm rate estimated to be less than 1 event per 203 000 years, equivalent to a significance greater than 5.1σ." And then the physicists fight/debate over how good this estimate of uncertainty is. Technology is created based on using facts discovered by physicists - layer, upon layer, upon layer of very precise and constant use of fundamental ideas of physics. If unexpected things keep happening, it gets investigated and sometimes "new physics" is discovered. On the other extreme (of what some call science) there is the social sciences and psychology. A study with a p=0.05 (95%) claim to being true. Lots of problems with p-hacking and replication. Scientific experiments are either unethical or impossible. Here is a cute cartoon about the spectrum (https://www.xkcd.com/435/ https://www.xkcd.com/435/), although I would title it, "Fields arranged by certainty of truth". I work in geology research where the certainty of truth of the ideas/theories we promote vary across the whole range. This can be quite fun, but one needs a very well developed sense of how true the ideas you hold are to make progress. The subtleties on the probability of an idea being true and over which domain it applies to is why people consult "experts". Hard to choose an expert when you are not an expert.
Zarath 9y ago
Belief is not binary.
KGIII 9y ago
I politely disagree. People are free to believe what they want. Belief should be optional. Reality doesn't much care what people believe. I'm not big on forcing people to think a certain way, nor am I sure how one would enforce such.
curun1r 9y ago
Belief should always be optional. Behavior based on that belief shouldn't. I'm fine with anyone who wants to question climate change, evolution or even something as accepted as gravity. Questioning is how we refine our thinking. Where I get less okay is when people use their questioning to justify behaviors that, should they be wrong, are detrimental to society and the world. Question climate change all you like, but stop polluting until you've convinced the majority of climate scientists. Question evolution, but stop preventing schools from teaching it or forcing them to give creationism an equal standing until you've got something that is, at least, equally supported. Science rarely does black and white, but you can still get a lot of benefit from altering behavior based on a scientific prediction that is 60%, 80%, 90%, 99% or 99.999% likely/accurate. Forcing belief doesn't honor that small bit of doubt that's inherent in any scientific study. But betting against what science believes to be likely when there are negative consequences to being wrong is stupid and we need to stop doing it.
- tbrownaw 9y ago
  Belief should always be optional. Behavior based on that belief shouldn't. Question climate change all you like, but stop polluting until you've convinced the majority of climate scientists. Just because they're all convinced it's completely our fault things are changing, doesn't mean that the prescribed remedies will actually work. What if the models are wrong on the low side, and we're wasting resources trying to stop the inevitable when we should be figuring out how to survive it?
  - njarboe 9y ago
    There is no real "inevitable" with climate change. More CO2 in the atmosphere will cause higher temperatures. There may be a "tipping point" where a little more CO2 will cause the system to shift dramatically to a higher temperature. But we sure don't know where that is. To give up trying to do anything about climate change (lower emissions, geoengineering, etc.) because it is inevitable we will have 2 degrees of temperature rise no matter what, is to loose track of the fact that 2 degrees would be much better 5 degrees which is much better than 10 degrees.

Belief should not be optional in the face of well-supported scientific conclusions. The problem is it's easy to mistake un-supported conclusions for well-supported conclusions.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

>Belief should not be optional in the face of well-supported scientific conclusions. What if I don't trust the scientists doing the work, or the larger system that they work in? What if I find the common incarnation of the entire field lacking? I do not trust much published by sociology, regardless of how many studies show results, because of the political nature of the field. On the other hand, physicist who say they found a new particle? I don't have an once of doubt (though maybe I should have a little). Part of the problem is that the very language used in sociology is crafted to reached the desired findings. Once the integrity of an entire field has been lost, what can be done to restore it?

thehardsphere 9y ago

Part of the way we go from "un-supported conclusions" to "well-supported conclusions" is by the optional nature of belief. Because belief is optional, the proponents actually have to go to the effort of supporting their conclusions with evidence. When believing something becomes non-optional, the incentive to do that goes out the window, and conclusions generally become weaker.

jdoliner 9y ago
To wit, it shouldn't be too surprising that the "scientist" who tells people that belief in his work is non-optional is the one who didn't bother to check if it's actually true.

jdoliner 9y ago

> Belief should not be optional What does that mean in real terms? What do you propose doing to those people who take the option of not believing? If the answer is nothing then belief is indeed optional.

tepe1 9y ago
You simply stop talking to them. In the real world when people begin spouting nonsense they are ejected from the community almost immediately. At elite institutions claims to not "believe" the Western synthesis are met with global permaban. (You literally have to leave the West and go to Russia or Africa.) Online of course the situation is very different. Bans ate impossible and people are free to believe everything.
smhost 9y ago
disinvited to social events, placed lower on the mate selection hierarchy, opinions not taken seriously, media makes fun of them, all the normal ways culture shapes behavior.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

MichaelBurge 9y ago

I'm not really sure what you mean by "not optional", but my interpretation is "Anyone who disagrees with the reigning philosopher-kings will be fined, jailed, or shot". I suppose there's ostracism for a non-state solution. So if you're a business, maybe once a year you make all of your employees measure some toads, and if they can't apply a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test correctly on the first try they're immediately fired and added to a shared blacklist. How exactly are you handling enforcement?

jdoliner 9y ago
More likely they'll be branded as "not believing in science" and unpersoned. But yes, this comment is spot on.

smsm42 9y ago

Then the rule is "you should unquestionably believe in claims from the set A, but not from the set B, and there's no way we can tell for each case to which set it belongs. But we will always claim it's A". Not a very objective or useful rule.

DonbunEf7 9y ago

I will believe as soon as you justify the correct answer to the demarcation problem. If you don't have an answer, then I'm free to interpret scientific results in my own way, including disbelief. C'mon, use logic and reason.

njarboe 9y ago

Good scientists have a well tuned sense of how much to doubt and believe various ideas. Some things can be determined to be true to high confidence and are most certainly true. Physicists try to get five or six sigma. For the LIGO black hole merger detection you get a statement like, "The signal was observed with a matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 24 and a false alarm rate estimated to be less than 1 event per 203 000 years, equivalent to a significance greater than 5.1σ." And then the physicists fight/debate over how good this estimate of uncertainty is. Technology is created based on using facts discovered by physicists - layer, upon layer, upon layer of very precise and constant use of fundamental ideas of physics. If unexpected things keep happening, it gets investigated and sometimes "new physics" is discovered. On the other extreme (of what some call science) there is the social sciences and psychology. A study with a p=0.05 (95%) claim to being true. Lots of problems with p-hacking and replication. Scientific experiments are either unethical or impossible. Here is a cute cartoon about the spectrum (https://www.xkcd.com/435/ https://www.xkcd.com/435/), although I would title it, "Fields arranged by certainty of truth". I work in geology research where the certainty of truth of the ideas/theories we promote vary across the whole range. This can be quite fun, but one needs a very well developed sense of how true the ideas you hold are to make progress. The subtleties on the probability of an idea being true and over which domain it applies to is why people consult "experts". Hard to choose an expert when you are not an expert.

Zarath 9y ago

Belief is not binary.

KGIII 9y ago

I politely disagree. People are free to believe what they want. Belief should be optional. Reality doesn't much care what people believe. I'm not big on forcing people to think a certain way, nor am I sure how one would enforce such.

curun1r 9y ago

Belief should always be optional. Behavior based on that belief shouldn't. I'm fine with anyone who wants to question climate change, evolution or even something as accepted as gravity. Questioning is how we refine our thinking. Where I get less okay is when people use their questioning to justify behaviors that, should they be wrong, are detrimental to society and the world. Question climate change all you like, but stop polluting until you've convinced the majority of climate scientists. Question evolution, but stop preventing schools from teaching it or forcing them to give creationism an equal standing until you've got something that is, at least, equally supported. Science rarely does black and white, but you can still get a lot of benefit from altering behavior based on a scientific prediction that is 60%, 80%, 90%, 99% or 99.999% likely/accurate. Forcing belief doesn't honor that small bit of doubt that's inherent in any scientific study. But betting against what science believes to be likely when there are negative consequences to being wrong is stupid and we need to stop doing it.

tbrownaw 9y ago
Belief should always be optional. Behavior based on that belief shouldn't. Question climate change all you like, but stop polluting until you've convinced the majority of climate scientists. Just because they're all convinced it's completely our fault things are changing, doesn't mean that the prescribed remedies will actually work. What if the models are wrong on the low side, and we're wasting resources trying to stop the inevitable when we should be figuring out how to survive it?
- njarboe 9y ago
  There is no real "inevitable" with climate change. More CO2 in the atmosphere will cause higher temperatures. There may be a "tipping point" where a little more CO2 will cause the system to shift dramatically to a higher temperature. But we sure don't know where that is. To give up trying to do anything about climate change (lower emissions, geoengineering, etc.) because it is inevitable we will have 2 degrees of temperature rise no matter what, is to loose track of the fact that 2 degrees would be much better 5 degrees which is much better than 10 degrees.