People Don't Trust Experts
September 19, 2010 - 9:38pm
I read this article: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/09/18/Why-people-disagree-with-scientists/UPI-93151284789626/
To summarize the already brief article: people trust scientific experts/studies when it confirms or reinforces beliefs the person already espouses. The article used climate change as an example. Those who deny human caused climate change is a real thing are substantially less likely to believe a scientific expert who claims otherwise.
My fellow bettor, Nik, has talked about this phenomenon at some length before: how a study which refutes or discredits a belief somebody holds will actually not change that person's mind about the belief, and cause them to doubt science as a field. I thought this was very interesting, but also incredibly depressing. What's the point of having such an epistemology if we humans aren't able to benefit from it?
Certainly not everyone exhibits this behavior (at least in such extreme ways) but I have to wonder if we all do this- and whether we who look down on this are actually hypocrites. I'm not talking about how people who 'believe' in science are just as bad as people who believe in a god- that's different (for reasons we've discussed) but I'm asking the atheists out there who say their understanding of the universe is logically based: if something you thought you knew was right- like heliocentrism- was credibly and repeatedly debunked by an opposing philosophy, how would you take it? If the national academy of sciences adopted this new theory, would you too?
I'd like to say personally that I would- but I'm not 100% sure about that. I would hope the evidence would be compelling enough for me to realize why the geocentric model is better, but I don't know. What do you think?
September 28, 2010 - 2:53pm
#2
Did that de-legitimatize astronomy? I think people still believe what astronomers say for the most part- even if they think Pluto is a planet.
November 21, 2010 - 11:05am
#3
I add my perspective from the part of the scientific universe I live in, regarding reactions when the scientific community presents revised findings/conclusions after further study (i.e. "debunks" a previously held interpretation)
In the fall of 2009, the USPFTF released new guidelines regarding screening mammograms for women, changing the age for which these screenings should start from age 40 to age 50 and to be every other year rather than annually.For the 2-3 years prior,I had been following the studies being published that supported this approach, felt the scientific evidence was good and was not surprised when this new recommendation was made.
The public firestorm that ensued was unbelievable. There was tremendous push back from the lay community, to the point the Obama administration was being pressured to "reverse the recommendations of the USPFTF"! Members of Congress were directly approached and asked to remove the new USPFTF guidelines from the Healthcare Reform Legislation AND for Congress to "make changes to the USPFTF Task force membership and operating process to guard against such unacceptable recommendations moving forward"!
The member scientists of the USPFTF task force were summoned to testify before two Congressional panels, convened to review the issues around the Task Force's new guidelines. In early Dec. 2009 the Senate approved an amendment directing the federal government to "ignore the recommendations by the USPFTF Task force".Donna Sweet, MD, a member of the American College of Physicians' Clinical Assessment Efficacy Subcommittee, who also testified before the committee panel, commented "We can't believe in science only when we like the science it produces,"
Additionally, disagreements flared within the medical community(mostly from radiologists who perform and interpret mammograms) regarding this recommendation with some physicians publicly denouncing the guidelines on various news outlets. The soundness of the scientific data behind these recommendations became essentially irrelevant during the media frenzy that was occurring.
By this example I wanted to illustrate that there are a complex array of issues behind refuting or supporting scientific data other than it challenges or supports an individuals current beliefs.
1. Fear and misunderstanding of disease detection /prevention/treatment in the general public. Lack the knowledge/education to understand the science.
2. Political entities may support or reject scientific findings solely on the basis of whether it will help or hinder a particular political agenda they are pursuing. It has nothing to do with the scientific finding and their personal or prior beliefs regarding that scientific finding. In this instance the Dems voted to have the Federal gov't "ignore" the recommended guidelines, to avert possible interference with passage of Health Care Reform legislation (HCRB). Congressional committees inserted themselves into the process of scientific research/publication of relevant findings, to create an appearance to the public in order avoid losing support for the HCRB. The Republicans mounted a media campaign based on the public's fear of cancer(and lack of understanding regarding cancer.) to emphasize "more people will die from breast cancer unnecessarily because of this", this guideline would be used by the Obama administration to start "rationing health care benefits" ESPECIALLY IF HEALTHCARE REFORM LEGISLATION PASSED, and therefore more people will die unnecessarily from breast cancer. Spreading fear and misinformation on the basis of a political agenda. Appalling!
3. Self serving economic interests: Most of the rejection of the findings of the USPSTF that occurred within the medical community came from the specialty of Radiology,who would have been the most impacted economically by the reduction in mammograms recommended by the USPSTF. Issues of earnings/professional income contributed to refutation of scientific evidence. This was never raised as the issue of course, the Radiology specialists based it on "more women will die from breast cancer if these guidelines are followed"and alleged "the science from the Task Force was inaccurate/incorrect" which of course gave them more public support adding to the pressure the Radiology groups were able to apply to the government to get "their turf and economic interests protected"
It is hard for me to grasp that fellow scientists would oppose/reject good scientific findings because of "the bottom line". Then there are those scientist who promote/overstate results arising from bad data/flawed methodology because of economic benefit, professional career advancement, or professional position could be jeopardized by non support of a finding.... etc. You get the idea.
There are all kinds of reasons individuals/groups adhere to viewpoints that are clearly being refuted by good scientific evidence. Look for the underlying motivation/story and the "rationale" for rejection of scientific findings may turn out to be much more than issues of pre-held personal beliefs.
I think a good test run of your question, John, is the demotion of Pluto from planet status to dwarf planet status as a trans-Neptunian object in the Kuiper belt. Look at popular reactions to that debacle.