The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

[Diego-Bucks]

We all have blinders in some situations. The question then becomes: What can be done to counteract human nature? Given the power of our prior beliefs to skew how we respond to new information, one thing is becoming clear: If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn't trigger a defensive, emotional reaction.

Doing so is, effectively, to signal a d?tente in what Kahan has called a "culture war of fact." In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values?so as to give the facts a fighting chance.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1

Pretty fascinating article with lots of psych and sociology studies to back up the premise that: our political/personal views skew what scientific evidence we accept at face value, which evidence we are skeptical to, which we deny and which we rationalize (possibly even irrationally) to counter-argue.

This last would be motivated-reasoning. Its basically like being a lawyer instead of a scientist (even though many folks would claim they might be scientific in thought). You have a bias to win the case (say an argument on evolution), so you try to interpret your world as to achieve this victory no matter the facts that would disagree with it. This is done so your sense of self can be protected.

The left has vaccine-autism, the right has climate change and evolution. At this stage in politics/partisanship those that gravitate to the political right seem to be more prone to rationalizing a counter-stance to scientific studies that would cause them to change (or disagree) with their prior held beliefs.

However, most people in general are prone to these problems of emotional biases inflicting how we interpret facts. The Jim Tressel/Tattoo scandal was a very apt example of this for the Buckeyes.

Obviously, its very intuitive that we bias ourselves and put the blinders on when we have something invested in the outcome. However, this article does a good job at showing that it seems some of the platform of the political right is to have something emotionally or financially invested in lots of outcomes while people that gravitate toward the left tends to be okay with ambiguity. *Note* the article uses egalitarian communitarian and hierarchical individualists to describe people, not necessarily the right and the left.

Perhaps its not a good idea to shape this as left vs. right and I'm not trying to do that. But I'm down for a discussion!

 

[muffler dragon]

Humans are subjective. Go figure. :p

 

[Bucklion]

PSY-cho, BAAA-ble...<clap, clap, clap-clap-clap>...

:tongue2:

 

[Diego-Bucks]

Haha. Like I said, its pretty intuitive. But it still has some very tangible consequences on our policy and decision making on both a personal and governmental level.

 

[buckeyegrad]

My only criticism of the article is that it does not go far enough.

Facts never speak for themselves, they are always attached to a story that gives them meaning. It is a delusion to believe that facts in themselves can ever be objective or tell us anything. What it really comes down to is in which story-tellers do you place your faith? Whether they be philosophers, religious leaders, scientists, social and political pundits, group patriarchs/matriarchs, etc., it doesn't really matter as they are all engaged in a form of interpretation and myth-making (note: myth-making as I use it here is the process of telling a story to convey an idea of truth).

If you get into the epistemological writings of Husserl, you see the empirical/modern worldview turned on its head. Husserl argued that only our perceptions can be considered object, while everything outside of us is subjective. This gets tricky as it challenges our very understanding of the objective-subjective divide we in the West often make. For example, we normally would state that it is an objective fact that BP is a site on the internet. However, Husserl would argue that in reality, we cannot objectively state this because all we really can access is our perceptions of BP as a web site; we never actually get to accessing the site itself as it always remains outside of our perceptions. Therefore, all we can really get at is what is the phenomenological essence of BP, which is to say, if we reduce the experiences of how those who interact with BP perceive it to its common essence, all we can confirm is that the phenomenological essence of BP is that it is a web site.

While I'm still working out what his ideas mean in our practical, day-to-day existence, I think Husserl is correct.

 

[bluechillj]

My only criticism of the article is that it does not go far enough.

Facts never speak for themselves, they are always attached to a story that gives them meaning. It is a delusion to believe that facts in themselves can ever be objective or tell us anything. What it really comes down to is in which story-tellers do you place your faith? Whether they be philosophers, religious leaders, scientists, social and political pundits, group patriarchs/matriarchs, etc., it doesn't really matter as they are all engaged in a form of interpretation and myth-making (note: myth-making as I use it here is the process of telling a story to convey an idea of truth).

If you get into the epistemological writings of Husserl, you see the empirical/modern worldview turned on its head. Husserl argued that only our perceptions can be considered object, while everything outside of us is subjective. This gets tricky as it challenges our very understanding of the objective-subjective divide we in the West often make. For example, we normally would state that it is an objective fact that BP is a site on the internet. However, Husserl would argue that in reality, we cannot objectively state this because all we really can access is our perceptions of BP as a web site; we never actually get to accessing the site itself as it always remains outside of our perceptions. Therefore, all we can really get at is what is the phenomenological essence of BP, which is to say, if we reduce the experiences of how those who interact with BP perceive it to its common essence, all we can confirm is that the phenomenological essence of BP is that it is a web site.

While I'm still working out what his ideas mean in our practical, day-to-day existence, I think Husserl is correct.

That's very interesting to hear, thanks for summarizing Husserl for someone with little knowledge in that area.

Without delving into the implications too much (not much time today), I would bring to your attention some perception research in psychology/cognitive science that is pretty fascinating and consistent with Husserl (if I am reading correctly). Basically, even during initial visual perception, we are unknowingly inputting influences from our bodies into what we see. What we see is not the simple, transmitted image our brain initially receives from the environment, but instead an image adjusted according to the perceived costs and opportunities of acting in our environment.

For example, if we are looking at a large hill, we literally see it as being steeper if we are fatigued, wearing a heavy backpack, or feeling fear. Similarly, if we are estimating the distance to the location of a task we must perform, it looks closer to us if we are holding a tool. But, it only looks closer if we intend to use the tool, which is a cool twist.

Note that with these, we are not simply talking about verbal reports of distance that could be biased by memory or other processes. These studies use matching visual measures so that a person can look back and forth between the target (e.g., the hill) and a measure on their other side. They adjust the measure to match the exact angle or distance to what they see on their other side.

There are plenty of other interesting examples of this idea, but hopefully these convey the gist.

 

[MaxBuck]

My only criticism of the article is that it does not go far enough.

Facts never speak for themselves, they are always attached to a story that gives them meaning. It is a delusion to believe that facts in themselves can ever be objective or tell us anything. What it really comes down to is in which story-tellers do you place your faith? Whether they be philosophers, religious leaders, scientists, social and political pundits, group patriarchs/matriarchs, etc., it doesn't really matter as they are all engaged in a form of interpretation and myth-making (note: myth-making as I use it here is the process of telling a story to convey an idea of truth).

If you get into the epistemological writings of Husserl, you see the empirical/modern worldview turned on its head. Husserl argued that only our perceptions can be considered object, while everything outside of us is subjective. This gets tricky as it challenges our very understanding of the objective-subjective divide we in the West often make. For example, we normally would state that it is an objective fact that BP is a site on the internet. However, Husserl would argue that in reality, we cannot objectively state this because all we really can access is our perceptions of BP as a web site; we never actually get to accessing the site itself as it always remains outside of our perceptions. Therefore, all we can really get at is what is the phenomenological essence of BP, which is to say, if we reduce the experiences of how those who interact with BP perceive it to its common essence, all we can confirm is that the phenomenological essence of BP is that it is a web site.

While I'm still working out what his ideas mean in our practical, day-to-day existence, I think Husserl is correct.

Jeepers creepers, what a bunch of words this is.

 

[Gatorubet]

My only criticism of the article is that it does not go far enough.

Facts never speak for themselves, they are always attached to a story that gives them meaning. It is a delusion to believe that facts in themselves can ever be objective or tell us anything. What it really comes down to is in which story-tellers do you place your faith? Whether they be philosophers, religious leaders, scientists, social and political pundits, group patriarchs/matriarchs, etc., it doesn't really matter as they are all engaged in a form of interpretation and myth-making (note: myth-making as I use it here is the process of telling a story to convey an idea of truth).

If you get into the epistemological writings of Husserl, you see the empirical/modern worldview turned on its head. Husserl argued that only our perceptions can be considered object, while everything outside of us is subjective. This gets tricky as it challenges our very understanding of the objective-subjective divide we in the West often make. For example, we normally would state that it is an objective fact that BP is a site on the internet. However, Husserl would argue that in reality, we cannot objectively state this because all we really can access is our perceptions of BP as a web site; we never actually get to accessing the site itself as it always remains outside of our perceptions. Therefore, all we can really get at is what is the phenomenological essence of BP, which is to say, if we reduce the experiences of how those who interact with BP perceive it to its common essence, all we can confirm is that the phenomenological essence of BP is that it is a web site.

While I'm still working out what his ideas mean in our practical, day-to-day existence, I think Husserl is correct.

Let me demonstrate the fallacy of the argument.

[skunkbear fan] "It is great to be a Michigan Man - a far superior thing to be than an existence being a fan of any other program - especially the Buckeyes." [/skunkbear fan]

Screw that skunkbear and his putrid perceptions. That is not close to being anywhere near the nature of an objective observation. If that is not almost totally a subjective statement predicated upon nothing more than an immature and decidedly delusional mind, then the very meaning of existence can be questioned. This we cannot do if there exists even the possibility of a separate reality in which that statement is deemed valid, true, or in any way objective fact. Such a thing would be worse than fumbling a football, and therefore far better to have died as a youth than to have experienced it.

The fact that there exist humanoids who think and feel and believe the statement does not in any way support the possibility that their feelings and subjective thought processes somehow are transformed into objectivity through philosophical alchemy. That would be an evil.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

 

[Gatorubet]

The FSM Cult is strong with this one...

 

[buckeyegrad]

Let me demonstrate the fallacy of the argument.

[skunkbear fan] "It is great to be a Michigan Man - a far superior thing to be than an existence being a fan of any other program - especially the Buckeyes." [/skunkbear fan]

Screw that skunkbear and his putrid perceptions. That is not close to being anywhere near the nature of an objective observation. If that is not almost totally a subjective statement predicated upon nothing more than an immature and decidedly delusional mind, then the very meaning of existence can be questioned. This we cannot do if there exists even the possibility of a separate reality in which that statement is deemed valid, true, or in any way objective fact. Such a thing would be worse than fumbling a football, and therefore far better to have died as a youth than to have experienced it.

The fact that there exist humanoids who think and feel and believe the statement does not in any way support the possibility that their feelings and subjective thought processes somehow are transformed into objectivity through philosophical alchemy. That would be an evil.

I'm not sure if this is in jest or a real criticism of Husserl. If it is a real criticism, I'm not sure I've explained transcendent phenomenology well enough as this seems to be missing the target by quite a distance.

Therefore, let me try again. The argument is that we cannot experience anything outside of ourselves except through our perceptions--I think this is difficult to argue against. As our perceptions are the only thing we truly experience, that is our only objective reality. What we perceive is the subjective, as we cannot experience it directly, but only through our perceptions.

So, to use the skunkbear you present, his perceptions of tsun and osu are an objective reality, because they are what he experiences--in other words, we can state with confidence that he perceives both tsun and osu. Granted, he perceives them differently than I would, but we can also objectively state that I do perceive them. The fact that we perceive the same things differently indicates that those things outside of our perceptions (e.g., tsun and osu) are subjective as we don't really know whose perceptions are closest to what tsun and osu really are.

However, in light of this, we can come to a reasonable estimation of what the phenomenological essence of tsun and osu are. We would do this by looking at both the skunkbear's and my perceptions of tsun and osu, and then reduce them to where we find common meaning-making (i.e. interpretation and story-telling) occurring by both individuals. To get a more accurate estimation of tsun's and osu's phenomenological essences, we would also want to include even more skunkbears and buckeyes, as well as other perspectives from gators, longhorns, bulldogs, hoosiers, etc.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I'm not sure if this is in jest or a real criticism of Husserl. If it is a real criticism, I'm not sure I've explained transcendent phenomenology well enough as this seems to be missing the target by quite a distance.

Therefore, let me try again. The argument is that we cannot experience anything outside of ourselves except through our perceptions--I think this is difficult to argue against. As our perceptions are the only thing we truly experience, that is our only objective reality. What we perceive is the subjective, as we cannot experience it directly, but only through our perceptions.

So, to use the skunkbear you present, his perceptions of tsun and osu are an objective reality, because they are what he experiences--in other words, we can state with confidence that he perceives both tsun and osu. Granted, he perceives them differently than I would, but we can also objectively state that I do perceive them. The fact that we perceive the same things differently indicates that those things outside of our perceptions (e.g., tsun and osu) are subjective as we don't really know whose perceptions are closest to what tsun and osu really are.

However, in light of this, we can come to a reasonable estimation of what the phenomenological essence of tsun and osu are. We would do this by looking at both the skunkbear's and my perceptions of tsun and osu, and then reduce them to where we find common meaning-making (i.e. interpretation and story-telling) occurring by both individuals. To get a more accurate estimation of tsun's and osu's phenomenological essences, we would also want to include even more skunkbears and buckeyes, as well as other perspectives from gators, longhorns, bulldogs, hoosiers, etc.

This seems so opposite to what I understand: it is our subjective perceptions that align or don't with objective reality. Subjectively, because I'm colorblind I percieve purple as blue. My perception doesn't make the purple blue. It's just how I see it. There is "real" answer though, objective from whether you or I are able to percieve it correctly.

 

[Jake]

The left has vaccine-autism, the right has climate change and evolution. At this stage in politics/partisanship those that gravitate to the political right seem to be more prone to rationalizing a counter-stance to scientific studies that would cause them to change (or disagree) with their prior held beliefs.

I think you need to ease up on the generalizations of "the left" and "the right" and their beliefs. Specifically, you seem to be combining "the right" with beliefs held by Christians. That brush is far too broad to be accurate. For example, you combined issues that would make me right on some and left on the other.

You also seem to suggest that the levels of evidence supporting all arguments are equivalent. Sorry, but I'm not buying that one either. Perhaps you're a little too close to one of them to be objective about it?

Obviously, its very intuitive that we bias ourselves and put the blinders on when we have something invested in the outcome.

Exactly.

Perhaps its not a good idea to shape this as left vs. right and I'm not trying to do that.

Are you sure about that?

 

[1997Buckeye]

This begs the question. Is perception or reality more important?

 

[buckeyegrad]

This seems so opposite to what I understand: it is our subjective perceptions that align or don't with objective reality. Subjectively, because I'm colorblind I percieve purple as blue. My perception doesn't make the purple blue. It's just how I see it. There is "real" answer though, objective from whether you or I are able to percieve it correctly.

I admit, this is turning our Western understanding of objective-subjective on its head. However, in light of post-modern critiques of that objective-subjective duality, which they effectively argue, IMO, is an artificial creation, the question for me became what is the alternative? I can't get myself to the post-modern stance that everything is subjective and there are millions of individual truths about the external world. For me, transcendental phenomenology seems like the most likely compromise in that it still holds that there is a common phenomenological essence about the world around us.

Like I said above, I'm still working out in my own mind how this works out on a day-to-day basis. Your example is where I have to pause and see if the theory really works. A phenomonologist would argue, I think, that the question at hand is what is the common essence of the color we call blue. In order to get to this, rather than studying the nature of the color, you would study how various individuals perceive the color blue. You would then look for the common experiences and descriptions of the color to determine its most basic essence. If a colorblind person is reporting purple, while 20 non-colorblind people are reporting blue, it would tell us that the pigment itself is not the essence of the object, but there is something more to search for.