I have returned from TAM 8, and if you read my last post, you already have the main theme of the conference. I just seem to be ahead of the game, I guess.
Let me explain. I think the key moment of the conference was the talk by Phil Plait. He did not present his usual science/astronomy talk. I could tell right away he was actually somewhat nervous, which is very unusual for Plait. He told us he is concerned about the tone of discussions in skepticism. He made his point by asking two questions: Have you ever changed your mind about something? Did you change your mind because someone called you an idiot? Many people raised their hands for the first question. Nobody did for the second. His point was the same as the point I made in my last post--that some blogs and commenters have resorted to a harsh tone, and that tone will not succeed if our goal is to change anyone's mind about anything.
The talk was well received, getting one of the two biggest ovations of the conference. The fact that Plait was nervous is telling. Plait is usually very confident, and is a leader of the skeptical movement. But the tone has become such that just saying we should be nice can be answered by strings of harsh invective.
Plait was immediately followed by Carol Tavris, who wrote the excellent book Misktakes were made (but not by me). It explores the topic of cognitive dissonance. Tavris provided the science to support Plait, showing that if you call someone an idiot or are confrontational, they will hold onto their beliefs more strongly rather than admit to being a fool. If you have two choices--you are right or you are an idiot, you will always decide you are right. If you can let them change their minds while maintaining face it will be much more effective.
Other speakers referred to Plait's talk throughout, often reinforcing his point, so it is fair to say it was the main theme of the conference (and of my last post). The speaker who most strongly added to the case was Massimo Pigliucci (I am currently reading his book, Nonsense on Stilts). He brought up another point of my last post--that intelligent people can be wrong. He used prominent skeptics, such as James Randi and Micheal Shermer, as examples. He also made the point that if there is a strong consensus on a scientific topic, that the lay person is not qualified to dispute it, and we usually have to accept the consensus, which of course is the same point I made in my last post. There is a degree of hubris in claiming that a casual reading of a topic makes you qualified to disagree with thousands of experts. He used global warming as an example, as I did in my last post.
So you could have just read my last post rather than attend TAM 8 and you have the main theme. It is interesting how these themes all came together, without planning, and right when I had been thinking of the same topics. I am glad the topic was discussed, and enjoyed Plait's excellent speech to set the tone. I am especially pleased because Plait will be speaking at Jamestown College in two months.
The other talk of note was by Pamela Gay, one of the speakers I was less familiar with. She gave an excellent and inspiring talk on science education, which also got a strong ovation (just before Plait). I mention it mostly because one of the points she brought up is why she does what she does. She teaches at a small midwestern college (having gone there from Harvard). She explains that she is there because she is needed there--she was not needed at Harvard. Obviously, I could relate to that (although I can't claim I left Harvard to come here).
There were more talks, but that is all I will comment on. I guess the disadvantage of having read works by most of the speakers is you really don't learn much new in a half hour talk from them. There was one other theme about what skepticism is and what we should be doing that I would have something to add to the speakers, but I won't be able to get to that.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
TAM 8 and skeptical humility.
I'll be heading to TAM 8 in Las Vegas soon. I've read books by about 3/4 of the speakers, including Richard Dawkins, Micheal Shermer, Carol Tarvis, Phil Plait, James Randi, and many others. It should be good. Maybe I'll have some thoughts to share when I get back.
I had also been thinking about skepticism and humility recently. I forget what made me think about it. It was probably some post on a skeptical blog with a dismissive tone. Although many skeptics take a better tone, a few often are dripping with contempt at their targets. I can understand that, to some extent. Some of the ideas are so obviously wrong, and some of them cause harm. The believers continue to spout their nonsense no matter how many times they are corrected. We see this with creationism and anti-vaxers and global warming denial and many others.
When you spend a lot of time dealing with these pseudosciences, there are two common responses. One is to see how completely wrong they are and to dismiss them all as fools and idiots with a contemptuous tone. However, I think another, much more humble response, is more appropriate. I am more interested in why people believe these things than what they believe. The one thing that is most obvious is that people do not believe because they are stupid. Very intelligent people believe things we know are wrong. Intelligent people are better at deceiving themselves with sophisticated arguments than less intelligent people. Studying pseudoscience means studying all of the ways we can't trust what we believe. Our memories can fool us. We all seek out confirming evidence and ignore contrary evidence. To resolve cognitive dissonance, we convince ourselves we weren't wrong when we made a mistake, and refuse to admit error. Now, I suppose it is possible that all of the other intelligent people fall victim to those things, but I am better and am correct in all of my beliefs. If I believe that, I have learned nothing from studying pseudoscience.
Even Nobel Prize winners have supported obvious woo. Do I really believe I am not susceptible? I think I can confidently say I am wrong about some things that I am confident I am right about (did that make sense?). I just don't know what I am wrong about. I am blind to it, by it's very nature. I try to think critically about everything and try to avoid falling into faulty thinking, but I would be a fool to think I can succeed completely. However, I can show a little humility and recognize that those that believe in woo are not different in kind from anyone else, and I should not hold them in contempt.
How can we identify if we are wrong? There are a few things to look for. If you hold a belief that is in stark contrast to most of the experts in the field, you should look at your belief very carefully. I don't want to make an argument from authority and say the experts are always right or that you should never question the common wisdom. We need people to question authority and the experts are sometimes wrong. But the stronger the consensus, the more careful and thorough you have to be if you oppose them. You could be the lone clear thinker and thousands of scientists are wrong, but it is more likely the other way around. You should look carefully for blinders if you oppose the majority. If someone who opposes evolution says "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still around?", they obviously are not qualified to oppose evolution. Biologists have not gone 150 years missing such an obvious objection. There is a simple answer, and if you don't know it, you don't know the theory of evolution.
Global warming is a good example, and I can speak from personal experience. When it first became a public issue in the late 1980s, I was skeptical (the actual science goes back 100 years before that, although I did not know it at the time). It is perhaps my natural instinct to doubt such ideas, and there have been numerous examples of distorted environmental fears. This seemed like another example of crying wolf. To a non expert, there seemed to be enough reason to doubt it. But I wasn't an expert. I never dismissed it out of hand, fortunately, and maintained some humility in admitting my lack of understanding. By 1997 the first IPCC report showed there was a consensus for warming. At that time, I tentatively accepted the consensus. I recognized that I did not have sound science to deny the consensus. If I were to disagree, I would have to bone up on the details of the science. I certainly couldn't deny it just because of my biases or instincts. Since then, I have tried to familiarize myself a little better with the science and the arguments of deniers. The science seems solid. I certainly have no basis to deny the consensus of thousands of experts. I have also noticed that the arguments of deniers tend to follow the same pattern of arguments I have seen in many other pseudosciences, so I have definitely rejected most of their arguments.
I had also been thinking about skepticism and humility recently. I forget what made me think about it. It was probably some post on a skeptical blog with a dismissive tone. Although many skeptics take a better tone, a few often are dripping with contempt at their targets. I can understand that, to some extent. Some of the ideas are so obviously wrong, and some of them cause harm. The believers continue to spout their nonsense no matter how many times they are corrected. We see this with creationism and anti-vaxers and global warming denial and many others.
When you spend a lot of time dealing with these pseudosciences, there are two common responses. One is to see how completely wrong they are and to dismiss them all as fools and idiots with a contemptuous tone. However, I think another, much more humble response, is more appropriate. I am more interested in why people believe these things than what they believe. The one thing that is most obvious is that people do not believe because they are stupid. Very intelligent people believe things we know are wrong. Intelligent people are better at deceiving themselves with sophisticated arguments than less intelligent people. Studying pseudoscience means studying all of the ways we can't trust what we believe. Our memories can fool us. We all seek out confirming evidence and ignore contrary evidence. To resolve cognitive dissonance, we convince ourselves we weren't wrong when we made a mistake, and refuse to admit error. Now, I suppose it is possible that all of the other intelligent people fall victim to those things, but I am better and am correct in all of my beliefs. If I believe that, I have learned nothing from studying pseudoscience.
Even Nobel Prize winners have supported obvious woo. Do I really believe I am not susceptible? I think I can confidently say I am wrong about some things that I am confident I am right about (did that make sense?). I just don't know what I am wrong about. I am blind to it, by it's very nature. I try to think critically about everything and try to avoid falling into faulty thinking, but I would be a fool to think I can succeed completely. However, I can show a little humility and recognize that those that believe in woo are not different in kind from anyone else, and I should not hold them in contempt.
How can we identify if we are wrong? There are a few things to look for. If you hold a belief that is in stark contrast to most of the experts in the field, you should look at your belief very carefully. I don't want to make an argument from authority and say the experts are always right or that you should never question the common wisdom. We need people to question authority and the experts are sometimes wrong. But the stronger the consensus, the more careful and thorough you have to be if you oppose them. You could be the lone clear thinker and thousands of scientists are wrong, but it is more likely the other way around. You should look carefully for blinders if you oppose the majority. If someone who opposes evolution says "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still around?", they obviously are not qualified to oppose evolution. Biologists have not gone 150 years missing such an obvious objection. There is a simple answer, and if you don't know it, you don't know the theory of evolution.
Global warming is a good example, and I can speak from personal experience. When it first became a public issue in the late 1980s, I was skeptical (the actual science goes back 100 years before that, although I did not know it at the time). It is perhaps my natural instinct to doubt such ideas, and there have been numerous examples of distorted environmental fears. This seemed like another example of crying wolf. To a non expert, there seemed to be enough reason to doubt it. But I wasn't an expert. I never dismissed it out of hand, fortunately, and maintained some humility in admitting my lack of understanding. By 1997 the first IPCC report showed there was a consensus for warming. At that time, I tentatively accepted the consensus. I recognized that I did not have sound science to deny the consensus. If I were to disagree, I would have to bone up on the details of the science. I certainly couldn't deny it just because of my biases or instincts. Since then, I have tried to familiarize myself a little better with the science and the arguments of deniers. The science seems solid. I certainly have no basis to deny the consensus of thousands of experts. I have also noticed that the arguments of deniers tend to follow the same pattern of arguments I have seen in many other pseudosciences, so I have definitely rejected most of their arguments.
There can be a delicate balance. When you study pseudoscience and see how easily we are deceived, you can doubt yourself so much that you think knowledge is impossible. How do I know I'm not wrong just as all of the confident deniers are wrong? Science is a way to know. It never has certainty, but you can have reasonable confidence. Science can correct for our errors of thinking.
If you have changed your mind about quite a few things, it suggests you are at least open to evidence. On the other hand, if your beliefs on most topics are the same now as when you were 18, you should be worried. What are the chances you happened to get everything right at that age? In the modern world, people are often criticized for changing their minds. I think we should critisize the people who never change their minds. They are the ones who are most certainly wrong about many things.
If you have changed your mind about quite a few things, it suggests you are at least open to evidence. On the other hand, if your beliefs on most topics are the same now as when you were 18, you should be worried. What are the chances you happened to get everything right at that age? In the modern world, people are often criticized for changing their minds. I think we should critisize the people who never change their minds. They are the ones who are most certainly wrong about many things.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
