10 ms·

Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

114 points by zeynel1 16y ago

RyanMcGreal 16y ago
Singh is a very talented science writer. The Code Book still ranks as one of the most engaging nonfiction books I've read. He managed to make a history of encryption into something of a gripping page-turner.
SandB0x 16y ago
Ben Goldacre is another good scientific crusader. It's worth reading his book Bad Science for his rants against the ridiculous poop-inspecting TV nutritionist "Dr" Gillian McKeith, and the more serious issue of quack medicine and its propaganda war against HIV/AIDS medication in South Africa. Here's a taster, from his Guardian column: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/03/badscience.uknews http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/03/badscience.ukn...
- Nekojoe 16y ago
  Don't forget to mention Ben Goldacre's own website too which has more of the same stuff - http://www.badscience.net/ http://www.badscience.net/
ErrantX 16y ago
Singh has, I think, won the first battle in two very long wars. The first is, of course, the science one. The other being our idiotic libel laws. From this it's clear he's very switched on too (well, that was probably not in doubt but still). This, in particular, is an important point we face: ''Scientists aren’t necessarily good communicators, because they aren’t trained to be good communicators. A researcher could be doing really important work on global warming, and then somebody writes a column in a national newspaper that completely undermines what they’re saying.''
- nanairo 16y ago
  About your last quote, I think what we need is to have scientist dedicated to the communication side of science: aka scientific journalists. I know there are a few, but we need a lot more, and like many bits of science they'll need to be sometimes paid with public money. This seems to me the only way that you can keep the scientist working on the science, and still answer all the questions that people have. Basically large groups need their own public relation department. :)
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - nanairo 16y ago
      True, but what is the alternative? To be at the receiving end of all the mud-slinging? (Kind of like Obama and the Democrats in the USA ;) ) At least you would end up with people despising the think-tanks and not the scientist. :) Too optimistic? Of course in an ideal world journalist would start doing proper research and fact checking, but now we are talking sci-fi. ;)
- oihuyjfrgtdfghj 16y ago
  And he hasn't won the libel war battle, the other side simply retracted the case. So no court decision, no new case law and nothing to stop them issuing a new writ tomorrow and doing it all over again - or them doing it to somebody else who can't afford $200,000 in legal fees to defend themselves.
RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
I was chatting with Simon about this a few weeks ago. He's definitely in this for the long haul, but is really looking forward to getting back to writing about science, not libel.
- smackfu 16y ago
  Nice to hear. I own all three of his science books and they are excellent. I wish someone else had spent five years fighting libel charges, and he had spent five years writing new books.
  - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
    Three? Which are you missing? The Code Book, Fermat's Last Theorem, Big Bang or Trick or Treatment (with Edzard Ernst)?
    - smackfu 16y ago
      Trick or Treatment, because I don't need a book to tell me that is BS.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    This is what scares me. It is in the nature of science that tests take a lot of time and effort. On the other hand, if you do _not_ follow science you can come up with a new theory every day. And to make it all the worst the scientist can be sued. Basically this way the anti-science groups can grind to a halt all of science. I don't want to think all the time good scientist can lose defending themselves from non-scientist instead of doing what they were trying to do: science.
cs2010 16y ago
"You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe."
- pradocchia 16y ago
  This cuts both ways. In the States, many people have lost their trust in the integrity of scientific research and the integrity of regulatory bodies. So the CDC might recommend something, or the FDA might approve some drug, and to people that trust these organizations, that's the golden stamp of approval. For others, any such recommendations are inherently suspect. This goes deeper than education, intelligence, etc, and you can't solve it though more education per se, unless that education addresses the source of the distrust. In areas where scientific research has been compromised by non-scientific interests, what can you do? Education is no longer education but propaganda, further deepening people's distrust.
  - PhilipM 16y ago
    Absolutely, and all these bodies that the public no longer trusts should be defunded 200%. Why throw good money after bad? Defund congress, the presidency, economist liars, education bureaucrats, and especially the thieves that make up academia with its 50k a year tuitions and grad student slave labor. But getting back to Singh, he's pretty clearly an idiot on a lot of things. Cars are not the issue, global warming is man made only to the degree pigs can fly and that you believe that a functionaly retarded government buraucrat should randomly assign 20% of your money to various propaganda projects. Chiropractors are quacks, but regular doctors are even bigger quacks. And least the chiropractors do something mildly positive for your money. Surgeons are ok, but they are very deficient in whole body well being. I support the right of chiropractors to say that singh is an idiot and that of signh to say they are liars. Both viewpoints are correct and they should argue for 10s of years. The only reason 200k had to be spent was because of the corrupt laws of the fascist government of britain. The parties should have argued without money or lawyers. Don't trust anyone, and don't let anyone hold your nice money. The sucker MBAs/politicians will rob you blind every time the second you trust them with any amount of money.
alexandros 16y ago
I fear that as the scientifically correct action keeps getting further and further divorced from the 'common sense' action on any given issue, the two worlds will continue to divide, and as the distance increases, science will get harder and harder to follow. The bridging has to be done by cultural evolution, so that the prejudices that form by 18 are not as counter-science as they are now, but even so, they cannot be adapted to future science when it's not yet in existence. So we need a culture based on constant learning and adapting our views to evidence. Based on the amount of cognitive bias we have built-in, the 'uncoolness' of rationality, and the speed of scientific progress, I'm not hopeful save for deep de-biasing interventions on our hardware. Let's see what 'anti-' movement that's going to raise.
- cstuder 16y ago
  If you're interested in Science Fiction, you might want to read Neal Stephensons 'Anathem'. It plays exactly with your scenario: Scientific groups isolating themselves intentionally from the 'secular' world. Funny enough, their scientists look like priest to the common people. And the common people are basically required to blindly accept what these priest... well... preach. Science turns into religion. It's always something I think about, when I see another survey whether you 'believe' in evolution or climate change.
  - kd0amg 16y ago
    And for a rather different take on science-as-religion, try A Canticle for Leibowitz.
josefresco 16y ago
I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft-balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true. I do agree that the "media" and "common sense" assumptions give more legitimacy to seemingly crazy ideas or counter-ideas. But simply dismissing all opposing viewpoints because they don't fit your scientific model is insane. I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact. Also, he's a great example of why average people dislike academics. Just being smarter is not enough to convince people. You actually need to listen to them, and learn to communicate with them in order for them to trust you. And isn't that what Simon wants?
- alexandros 16y ago
  Hindsight is great. However the real question, is what could you have done in that time to attain a better epistemic position than the scientific consensus, and if you apply that algorithm today, what will it give you as responses. In other words, if trusting scientists is a historically unreliable method, what's your less unreliable alternative?
  - josefresco 16y ago
    Oh I don't know ...questioning their conclusions? Participating in a healthy debate? The impression (which may be wrong) was that Simon was advocating trust just because a scientist may hold a degree or may have joined with other scientists in agreement.
- praptak 16y ago
  "Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true." I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority.
dean 16y ago
Why did Singh have to pay $200,000 of his own money to defend himself? Where was The Guardian in all of this? Edit: typos.
- olliesaunders 16y ago
  The Guardian has no doubt protected itself from legal responsibility of certain writers: probably those which aren't direct employees. So I imagine the 200,000 comes from legal fees.
zeteo 16y ago
'You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.' Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly trust X's assertions. The other way for the layperson to judge specialists is to learn enough about their field in order to evaluate their predictions. Granted, this involves much, much more effort than lazily following the reputation talk. But it also makes it much safer to trust the people involved, and to maybe stop trusting them if they go astray at some point. To bring forth examples, evolution is quite easy to verify after reading a bit of biology. For example, DNA analysis comes in a full century after the "Origin of Species" and shows us how amazingly related all living things are, deep within; thus giving precise shapes to the "trees of life" that Darwin first sketched in his notebooks. And there are many, many other predictions of the theory of evolution that can be easily checked by the unprejudiced amateur. You'll rarely find articles that say "Dawkins believes in evolution, and Dawkins is a great scientist, therefore evolution is true". On the other hand, things like climate science seem (to me at least) to rely much more on the argument from authority for gaining lay support. If some prominent climate scientist had predicted in the 90's that "average temperature in the 2000-2010 decade, as indicated by methodology X, will be 1.4 plus or minus 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than in the 1990s", I would have a much easier time trusting his or her claims now. But things seem to be moving in the opposite direction with this field, e.g. as witnessed by the very replacement of "global warming" (somewhat verifiable) with "climate change" (unfalsifiable), and the popular attribution of all kinds of meteorological phenomena to this cause, in the same non-comprehending way that, not so long ago, they were ascribed to the god of thunder.
- nanairo 16y ago
  I see what you mean but I think you are overlooking how easy it is to muddy the waters. You come up with a good evidence of evolution. Great: but it will take the anti-evolution just one guy that makes a somehow plausible alternative scenario, or finds one whole in your argument and suddenly people are back to square one. Despite we are _not_ back on square one. Between a theory that almost works (like evolution) and one that is pure conjecture, the fact that there's a whole in the former all it shows is that we need to improve the theory. It is the same thing in climate modelling. It takes a nobody to say something which sound somehow plausible for the scientist to need to prove themselves again, often taking several years and a lot of effort. Most scientist, including at the IPCC, do describe hypothetical scenarios with all their doubts, including error bars etc... They also state all their assumptions, and their full method. Then one guy says: "Hey, it's been crazy cold in England this winter... so much for global warming", or "between 2001-2002 the global temperature went down" and suddenly everyone feel they are back to "we don't know". But why? The data from the IPCC is the result of many different models, with many different assumptions. The opposition has provided no better model: all they need to do to keep the status quo is point out some small unknown or flaw. That's WRONG! And btw, climate science is possibly one of the hardest disciplines around: you are making a prediction in the future of a chaotic system. But the anti-science groups can find objections just as easily to pretty much any bit of science they dislike.
nanairo 16y ago
I think this is one of the most important points: "That said, they can also find support for their ideas in the mainstream media—because when the mainstream media gives a so-called balanced view, it’s often misleading. The media thinks that because one side says climate change is real and dangerous, the other view is that it’s not real and not dangerous. That doesn’t reflect the fact that something like 98 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and dangerous. And this happens with everything from genetically modified foods to evolution." It is not just in science. It is in everything, including politics. The (modern) concept of the unbiased view has turned into a "ask both sides of the argument". Which can work when (say) you are in an election campaign. But take a scientist and a charismatic charlatan: the scientist tries to give the right view (with all the ifs and buts) and the charlatan gives a appealing and simple to understand story... though completely wrong. I don't blame the reader/viewer for not being persuaded by the scientist. The idea that, for example, a group of us could join forces and argue that the oil spill is really a good thing for the biology of the mexican gulf, and we would be given equal time with the guy who's done 10 years of study in it... that does not help the viewer. The journalist seem to have forgotten their role of gatekeepers, and fact checking. They seem to be just there repeating verbatim what he or she says: sure, it makes their job easier, but it really doesn't help their readership.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  Given CNN's new behavior of reporting news as defined by their viewers on Twitter, this is not too surprising. It would be nice if news organizations went back to being cost centers separated from the organization's entertainment center.
chadmalik 16y ago
I think what he is saying make sense. For instance there is a huge mountain of evidence for anthropogenic global warming and the need to cut down our emissions. I'd say on 9/10 things I probably agree with the scientists, with the exception of GMO foods which to me are a really bad idea with potentially catastrophic consequences. However, I have a problem with laymen needing to sit down and accept whatever scientists say for the simple fact that science is not some pristine incorruptible institution dedicated only to truth. Scientists are PEOPLE and are subject to the same political issues, careerism, bias to not make funders angry, etc. that everyone else is. Science is subject to a lot of influence from the people holding the purse strings, which are often industry. Take the recent story that came out of Harvard Medical School about how pharma has been influencing the ways that drugs are being prescribed: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-co... - should we non-scientists not question scientists, physicians, and other "authorities" when this type of thing is happening? It is a GOOD thing when people question what scientists say. What is needed are better ways for scientists and non-scientists to engage in dialogue, and more often. Believe it ot not there might be a few things scientists can learn from the non-scientists. I think that a lot of this gets discussed by regular people on broadcast channels (talk radio, cable news) that are really terrible mediums for communicating complex ideas. It would be nice if TV and radio weren't so cluttered with advertising, which makes it almost impossible to do more than make short statements. The exceptions that are good for communiating ideas through broadcast (such as Michio Kaku's radio show) prove the rule by being commercial-free. Another note, scientists have to understand how political discourse and beliefs work. The domain is NOT based on rational inquiry and peer review. There is no "correct answer" as to whether Social Security should be privatized or if the US should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. The work of George Lakoff is a must-read on this topic; we form much of our political beliefs based on non-rational moral frameworks that stem from our childhood and our ideas about the family (strict father vs. nurturant parent morality), and mapping our ideas about how the family should work onto the "nation as family" morality.
- nanairo 16y ago
  I agree that scientist are not above human mistakes and bias like everyone else. But there is a way to tackle that. The scientific method tries to minimise the errors cause by bias and human mistakes. That's why we can eventually decide that the tobacco industry's results were wrong: because they had to show all their procedure and some other scientist could explain where they went wrong. But when you take statements from alternative medicine, which are: a) not based on any scientific theory, b) often only defended by anecdotal evidence, c) their speaker is charismatic and a proficient PR, then it gets really really hard. You may point out to research showing that homeopathy doesn't work. To avoid being branded as hiding data or such, you say everything very carefully, explaining anything you know and you don't know, and the uncertainty in the results and so. The other then replies: "You can give me all the numbers you want, but I've _seen_ cases of people who got a lot better." and then show you a few photos of before and after: "Why---he concludes---do you not want the audience to have access to the most effective treatment?". The former was boring, hard to understand, and objective/dry. The latter spoke straight to the heart, and show evidence. And remember that a lot of problem arise because people _want_ to believe the charlatan. They want to believe that the incurable cancer that the doctor prescribed can be cured, or that they can keep their lifestyle without destroying the world, or that the religion the believed for for so long is correct an we humans are special.
Towle_ 16y ago
I hope everyone realizes the "War on Science" is being marketed to a specific demographic the same way the "War on Christmas" was. If you rolled your eyes then...
- olliesaunders 16y ago
  I'm not familiar with the War on Christmas. Can you elaborate.
  - Towle_ 16y ago
    Several years ago in the U.S., many of the Religious Right-oriented media outlets complained of stores putting up "Happy Holidays" signs instead of the traditional "Merry Christmas" signs. Despite the fact that this had already been relatively common practice for some time. Nonetheless, the "issue" was created and lots of people decided to be outraged about it. Everyone else rolled their eyes.
- joey_bananas 16y ago
  Difference is, people die from bad science. No one does if a christmas tree is nomenclatured a holiday tree.
viggity 16y ago
I think the most important metric on whether or not to trust someone is there research methodology. Everything regarding MMR has been tested via a double blind study (ie the people analyzing the data are different and separated from the people collecting the data). The "evidence" about a link between chiropractic care and asthma was not tested with such rigor. Similarly, virtually all of the evidence suggesting anthropogenic global warming is published by the same people who collect the data. They willfully ignore counter evidence and they rely on loads of proxy data that can easily be manipulated. If you haven't read Michael Crichton's essay on global warming, I highly recommend it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html
alok-g 16y ago
>> Antiscientific and pseudoscientific attitudes will get corrected; it’s just a question of how painful that process is going to be. Not necessarily true. Things like astrology, alternative healing, etc. have been there for thousands of years and they just don't seem to be going away. Roger Penrose makes some very interesting remarks on origins of these in his book "The Road to Reality". He says that ancient humans observed the influence the Sun had on their lives (day/nights, seasons, etc.) and also of the moon (tides, etc.). And there came a wrong inference that "all" heavenly objects have such an influence (astrology). He also speculates ancient humans figuring out geometrical shapes and finding naturally occurring crystals having those perfect shapes. And there came another wrong inference that such perfect natural objects must have powers to cure all that is not perfect (crystal healing). More than a few thousands of years later, going from development of first scientific thought process in human beings (e.g.: astronomy) all the way to today, plenty of people still believe in these things (e.g.: astrology). The third thing Penrose mentions amongst some of the first things humans learned is earth being flat, which again was a wrong inference (looks flat at human scales, must be flat at larger scales too). It took so much pain to fix this and that could only be done because a very simple evidence could ultimately be produced that everyone could see and understand by seeing a single photograph (of the round earth taken from the space). (Aside: And now humans wonder if the universe is flat. Penrose has beautifully connected some most ancient things in the human thought process to the most modern ones.) I doubt such simple evidence is ever going to come against astrology and alternative healing, for one that it would be a lack of evidence instead. What was a "photograph" of a "round" earth there, would here be a "plot" of an uncorrelated variable (say improvement in health) against dependent variable (use of crystals) showing a "round" blob (no correlation) instead of a round earth. Just that this time, majority of humans are not able to follow (what some of us call) such simple a plot!

114 points by zeynel1 16y ago

Singh is a very talented science writer. The Code Book still ranks as one of the most engaging nonfiction books I've read. He managed to make a history of encryption into something of a gripping page-turner.

SandB0x 16y ago

Ben Goldacre is another good scientific crusader. It's worth reading his book Bad Science for his rants against the ridiculous poop-inspecting TV nutritionist "Dr" Gillian McKeith, and the more serious issue of quack medicine and its propaganda war against HIV/AIDS medication in South Africa. Here's a taster, from his Guardian column: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/03/badscience.uknews http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/03/badscience.ukn...

Nekojoe 16y ago
Don't forget to mention Ben Goldacre's own website too which has more of the same stuff - http://www.badscience.net/ http://www.badscience.net/

ErrantX 16y ago

Singh has, I think, won the first battle in two very long wars. The first is, of course, the science one. The other being our idiotic libel laws. From this it's clear he's very switched on too (well, that was probably not in doubt but still). This, in particular, is an important point we face: ''Scientists aren’t necessarily good communicators, because they aren’t trained to be good communicators. A researcher could be doing really important work on global warming, and then somebody writes a column in a national newspaper that completely undermines what they’re saying.''

nanairo 16y ago
About your last quote, I think what we need is to have scientist dedicated to the communication side of science: aka scientific journalists. I know there are a few, but we need a lot more, and like many bits of science they'll need to be sometimes paid with public money. This seems to me the only way that you can keep the scientist working on the science, and still answer all the questions that people have. Basically large groups need their own public relation department. :)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - nanairo 16y ago
    True, but what is the alternative? To be at the receiving end of all the mud-slinging? (Kind of like Obama and the Democrats in the USA ;) ) At least you would end up with people despising the think-tanks and not the scientist. :) Too optimistic? Of course in an ideal world journalist would start doing proper research and fact checking, but now we are talking sci-fi. ;)
oihuyjfrgtdfghj 16y ago
And he hasn't won the libel war battle, the other side simply retracted the case. So no court decision, no new case law and nothing to stop them issuing a new writ tomorrow and doing it all over again - or them doing it to somebody else who can't afford $200,000 in legal fees to defend themselves.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago

I was chatting with Simon about this a few weeks ago. He's definitely in this for the long haul, but is really looking forward to getting back to writing about science, not libel.

smackfu 16y ago
Nice to hear. I own all three of his science books and they are excellent. I wish someone else had spent five years fighting libel charges, and he had spent five years writing new books.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  Three? Which are you missing? The Code Book, Fermat's Last Theorem, Big Bang or Trick or Treatment (with Edzard Ernst)?
  - smackfu 16y ago
    Trick or Treatment, because I don't need a book to tell me that is BS.
- nanairo 16y ago
  This is what scares me. It is in the nature of science that tests take a lot of time and effort. On the other hand, if you do _not_ follow science you can come up with a new theory every day. And to make it all the worst the scientist can be sued. Basically this way the anti-science groups can grind to a halt all of science. I don't want to think all the time good scientist can lose defending themselves from non-scientist instead of doing what they were trying to do: science.

cs2010 16y ago

"You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe."

pradocchia 16y ago
This cuts both ways. In the States, many people have lost their trust in the integrity of scientific research and the integrity of regulatory bodies. So the CDC might recommend something, or the FDA might approve some drug, and to people that trust these organizations, that's the golden stamp of approval. For others, any such recommendations are inherently suspect. This goes deeper than education, intelligence, etc, and you can't solve it though more education per se, unless that education addresses the source of the distrust. In areas where scientific research has been compromised by non-scientific interests, what can you do? Education is no longer education but propaganda, further deepening people's distrust.
- PhilipM 16y ago
  Absolutely, and all these bodies that the public no longer trusts should be defunded 200%. Why throw good money after bad? Defund congress, the presidency, economist liars, education bureaucrats, and especially the thieves that make up academia with its 50k a year tuitions and grad student slave labor. But getting back to Singh, he's pretty clearly an idiot on a lot of things. Cars are not the issue, global warming is man made only to the degree pigs can fly and that you believe that a functionaly retarded government buraucrat should randomly assign 20% of your money to various propaganda projects. Chiropractors are quacks, but regular doctors are even bigger quacks. And least the chiropractors do something mildly positive for your money. Surgeons are ok, but they are very deficient in whole body well being. I support the right of chiropractors to say that singh is an idiot and that of signh to say they are liars. Both viewpoints are correct and they should argue for 10s of years. The only reason 200k had to be spent was because of the corrupt laws of the fascist government of britain. The parties should have argued without money or lawyers. Don't trust anyone, and don't let anyone hold your nice money. The sucker MBAs/politicians will rob you blind every time the second you trust them with any amount of money.

alexandros 16y ago

I fear that as the scientifically correct action keeps getting further and further divorced from the 'common sense' action on any given issue, the two worlds will continue to divide, and as the distance increases, science will get harder and harder to follow. The bridging has to be done by cultural evolution, so that the prejudices that form by 18 are not as counter-science as they are now, but even so, they cannot be adapted to future science when it's not yet in existence. So we need a culture based on constant learning and adapting our views to evidence. Based on the amount of cognitive bias we have built-in, the 'uncoolness' of rationality, and the speed of scientific progress, I'm not hopeful save for deep de-biasing interventions on our hardware. Let's see what 'anti-' movement that's going to raise.

cstuder 16y ago
If you're interested in Science Fiction, you might want to read Neal Stephensons 'Anathem'. It plays exactly with your scenario: Scientific groups isolating themselves intentionally from the 'secular' world. Funny enough, their scientists look like priest to the common people. And the common people are basically required to blindly accept what these priest... well... preach. Science turns into religion. It's always something I think about, when I see another survey whether you 'believe' in evolution or climate change.
- kd0amg 16y ago
  And for a rather different take on science-as-religion, try A Canticle for Leibowitz.

josefresco 16y ago

I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft-balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true. I do agree that the "media" and "common sense" assumptions give more legitimacy to seemingly crazy ideas or counter-ideas. But simply dismissing all opposing viewpoints because they don't fit your scientific model is insane. I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact. Also, he's a great example of why average people dislike academics. Just being smarter is not enough to convince people. You actually need to listen to them, and learn to communicate with them in order for them to trust you. And isn't that what Simon wants?

alexandros 16y ago
Hindsight is great. However the real question, is what could you have done in that time to attain a better epistemic position than the scientific consensus, and if you apply that algorithm today, what will it give you as responses. In other words, if trusting scientists is a historically unreliable method, what's your less unreliable alternative?
- josefresco 16y ago
  Oh I don't know ...questioning their conclusions? Participating in a healthy debate? The impression (which may be wrong) was that Simon was advocating trust just because a scientist may hold a degree or may have joined with other scientists in agreement.
praptak 16y ago
"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true." I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority.

dean 16y ago

Why did Singh have to pay $200,000 of his own money to defend himself? Where was The Guardian in all of this? Edit: typos.

olliesaunders 16y ago
The Guardian has no doubt protected itself from legal responsibility of certain writers: probably those which aren't direct employees. So I imagine the 200,000 comes from legal fees.

zeteo 16y ago

'You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.' Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly trust X's assertions. The other way for the layperson to judge specialists is to learn enough about their field in order to evaluate their predictions. Granted, this involves much, much more effort than lazily following the reputation talk. But it also makes it much safer to trust the people involved, and to maybe stop trusting them if they go astray at some point. To bring forth examples, evolution is quite easy to verify after reading a bit of biology. For example, DNA analysis comes in a full century after the "Origin of Species" and shows us how amazingly related all living things are, deep within; thus giving precise shapes to the "trees of life" that Darwin first sketched in his notebooks. And there are many, many other predictions of the theory of evolution that can be easily checked by the unprejudiced amateur. You'll rarely find articles that say "Dawkins believes in evolution, and Dawkins is a great scientist, therefore evolution is true". On the other hand, things like climate science seem (to me at least) to rely much more on the argument from authority for gaining lay support. If some prominent climate scientist had predicted in the 90's that "average temperature in the 2000-2010 decade, as indicated by methodology X, will be 1.4 plus or minus 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than in the 1990s", I would have a much easier time trusting his or her claims now. But things seem to be moving in the opposite direction with this field, e.g. as witnessed by the very replacement of "global warming" (somewhat verifiable) with "climate change" (unfalsifiable), and the popular attribution of all kinds of meteorological phenomena to this cause, in the same non-comprehending way that, not so long ago, they were ascribed to the god of thunder.

nanairo 16y ago
I see what you mean but I think you are overlooking how easy it is to muddy the waters. You come up with a good evidence of evolution. Great: but it will take the anti-evolution just one guy that makes a somehow plausible alternative scenario, or finds one whole in your argument and suddenly people are back to square one. Despite we are _not_ back on square one. Between a theory that almost works (like evolution) and one that is pure conjecture, the fact that there's a whole in the former all it shows is that we need to improve the theory. It is the same thing in climate modelling. It takes a nobody to say something which sound somehow plausible for the scientist to need to prove themselves again, often taking several years and a lot of effort. Most scientist, including at the IPCC, do describe hypothetical scenarios with all their doubts, including error bars etc... They also state all their assumptions, and their full method. Then one guy says: "Hey, it's been crazy cold in England this winter... so much for global warming", or "between 2001-2002 the global temperature went down" and suddenly everyone feel they are back to "we don't know". But why? The data from the IPCC is the result of many different models, with many different assumptions. The opposition has provided no better model: all they need to do to keep the status quo is point out some small unknown or flaw. That's WRONG! And btw, climate science is possibly one of the hardest disciplines around: you are making a prediction in the future of a chaotic system. But the anti-science groups can find objections just as easily to pretty much any bit of science they dislike.

nanairo 16y ago

I think this is one of the most important points: "That said, they can also find support for their ideas in the mainstream media—because when the mainstream media gives a so-called balanced view, it’s often misleading. The media thinks that because one side says climate change is real and dangerous, the other view is that it’s not real and not dangerous. That doesn’t reflect the fact that something like 98 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and dangerous. And this happens with everything from genetically modified foods to evolution." It is not just in science. It is in everything, including politics. The (modern) concept of the unbiased view has turned into a "ask both sides of the argument". Which can work when (say) you are in an election campaign. But take a scientist and a charismatic charlatan: the scientist tries to give the right view (with all the ifs and buts) and the charlatan gives a appealing and simple to understand story... though completely wrong. I don't blame the reader/viewer for not being persuaded by the scientist. The idea that, for example, a group of us could join forces and argue that the oil spill is really a good thing for the biology of the mexican gulf, and we would be given equal time with the guy who's done 10 years of study in it... that does not help the viewer. The journalist seem to have forgotten their role of gatekeepers, and fact checking. They seem to be just there repeating verbatim what he or she says: sure, it makes their job easier, but it really doesn't help their readership.

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
Given CNN's new behavior of reporting news as defined by their viewers on Twitter, this is not too surprising. It would be nice if news organizations went back to being cost centers separated from the organization's entertainment center.

chadmalik 16y ago

I think what he is saying make sense. For instance there is a huge mountain of evidence for anthropogenic global warming and the need to cut down our emissions. I'd say on 9/10 things I probably agree with the scientists, with the exception of GMO foods which to me are a really bad idea with potentially catastrophic consequences. However, I have a problem with laymen needing to sit down and accept whatever scientists say for the simple fact that science is not some pristine incorruptible institution dedicated only to truth. Scientists are PEOPLE and are subject to the same political issues, careerism, bias to not make funders angry, etc. that everyone else is. Science is subject to a lot of influence from the people holding the purse strings, which are often industry. Take the recent story that came out of Harvard Medical School about how pharma has been influencing the ways that drugs are being prescribed: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-co... - should we non-scientists not question scientists, physicians, and other "authorities" when this type of thing is happening? It is a GOOD thing when people question what scientists say. What is needed are better ways for scientists and non-scientists to engage in dialogue, and more often. Believe it ot not there might be a few things scientists can learn from the non-scientists. I think that a lot of this gets discussed by regular people on broadcast channels (talk radio, cable news) that are really terrible mediums for communicating complex ideas. It would be nice if TV and radio weren't so cluttered with advertising, which makes it almost impossible to do more than make short statements. The exceptions that are good for communiating ideas through broadcast (such as Michio Kaku's radio show) prove the rule by being commercial-free. Another note, scientists have to understand how political discourse and beliefs work. The domain is NOT based on rational inquiry and peer review. There is no "correct answer" as to whether Social Security should be privatized or if the US should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. The work of George Lakoff is a must-read on this topic; we form much of our political beliefs based on non-rational moral frameworks that stem from our childhood and our ideas about the family (strict father vs. nurturant parent morality), and mapping our ideas about how the family should work onto the "nation as family" morality.

nanairo 16y ago
I agree that scientist are not above human mistakes and bias like everyone else. But there is a way to tackle that. The scientific method tries to minimise the errors cause by bias and human mistakes. That's why we can eventually decide that the tobacco industry's results were wrong: because they had to show all their procedure and some other scientist could explain where they went wrong. But when you take statements from alternative medicine, which are: a) not based on any scientific theory, b) often only defended by anecdotal evidence, c) their speaker is charismatic and a proficient PR, then it gets really really hard. You may point out to research showing that homeopathy doesn't work. To avoid being branded as hiding data or such, you say everything very carefully, explaining anything you know and you don't know, and the uncertainty in the results and so. The other then replies: "You can give me all the numbers you want, but I've _seen_ cases of people who got a lot better." and then show you a few photos of before and after: "Why---he concludes---do you not want the audience to have access to the most effective treatment?". The former was boring, hard to understand, and objective/dry. The latter spoke straight to the heart, and show evidence. And remember that a lot of problem arise because people _want_ to believe the charlatan. They want to believe that the incurable cancer that the doctor prescribed can be cured, or that they can keep their lifestyle without destroying the world, or that the religion the believed for for so long is correct an we humans are special.

Towle_ 16y ago

I hope everyone realizes the "War on Science" is being marketed to a specific demographic the same way the "War on Christmas" was. If you rolled your eyes then...

olliesaunders 16y ago
I'm not familiar with the War on Christmas. Can you elaborate.
- Towle_ 16y ago
  Several years ago in the U.S., many of the Religious Right-oriented media outlets complained of stores putting up "Happy Holidays" signs instead of the traditional "Merry Christmas" signs. Despite the fact that this had already been relatively common practice for some time. Nonetheless, the "issue" was created and lots of people decided to be outraged about it. Everyone else rolled their eyes.
joey_bananas 16y ago
Difference is, people die from bad science. No one does if a christmas tree is nomenclatured a holiday tree.

viggity 16y ago

I think the most important metric on whether or not to trust someone is there research methodology. Everything regarding MMR has been tested via a double blind study (ie the people analyzing the data are different and separated from the people collecting the data). The "evidence" about a link between chiropractic care and asthma was not tested with such rigor. Similarly, virtually all of the evidence suggesting anthropogenic global warming is published by the same people who collect the data. They willfully ignore counter evidence and they rely on loads of proxy data that can easily be manipulated. If you haven't read Michael Crichton's essay on global warming, I highly recommend it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html

alok-g 16y ago

>> Antiscientific and pseudoscientific attitudes will get corrected; it’s just a question of how painful that process is going to be. Not necessarily true. Things like astrology, alternative healing, etc. have been there for thousands of years and they just don't seem to be going away. Roger Penrose makes some very interesting remarks on origins of these in his book "The Road to Reality". He says that ancient humans observed the influence the Sun had on their lives (day/nights, seasons, etc.) and also of the moon (tides, etc.). And there came a wrong inference that "all" heavenly objects have such an influence (astrology). He also speculates ancient humans figuring out geometrical shapes and finding naturally occurring crystals having those perfect shapes. And there came another wrong inference that such perfect natural objects must have powers to cure all that is not perfect (crystal healing). More than a few thousands of years later, going from development of first scientific thought process in human beings (e.g.: astronomy) all the way to today, plenty of people still believe in these things (e.g.: astrology). The third thing Penrose mentions amongst some of the first things humans learned is earth being flat, which again was a wrong inference (looks flat at human scales, must be flat at larger scales too). It took so much pain to fix this and that could only be done because a very simple evidence could ultimately be produced that everyone could see and understand by seeing a single photograph (of the round earth taken from the space). (Aside: And now humans wonder if the universe is flat. Penrose has beautifully connected some most ancient things in the human thought process to the most modern ones.) I doubt such simple evidence is ever going to come against astrology and alternative healing, for one that it would be a lack of evidence instead. What was a "photograph" of a "round" earth there, would here be a "plot" of an uncorrelated variable (say improvement in health) against dependent variable (use of crystals) showing a "round" blob (no correlation) instead of a round earth. Just that this time, majority of humans are not able to follow (what some of us call) such simple a plot!