Science Denial is Not a Choice

[Danmark]

Watching Diane Sawyer’s interview with Bruce Jenner tonight on 20/20 I realized something that has been puzzling me. There is a common psychological issue or learning disorder that is associated with religious thinking, at least for some religious people, particularly with Muslims and Christians. I’m not sure if it comes from deference to authority or simplistic thinking or both… or other factors in combination. But this much I’ve observed: there is a common thread running through their thinking that seems to converge on not accepting facts that disrupt simple stereotypes.

We talk about “science denial,� but it is much more pervasive than just denying the science of evolution and denying the ancient age of the Earth despite the overwhelming evidence. Recently I realized science denial is involved when it comes to the obvious fact that manmade contributions to air pollution contribute to climate change.

What clarified this for me is the transgender issue. A segment of Christians and apparently an even larger segment of Muslims have long been in denial about same sex gender attraction being a something that is not a choice.

More recently we have the issue that has become more openly talked about because of Bruce Jenner. Here is a guy who set a world record in the decathlon, proclaimed the world’s greatest athlete, who has achieved the masculine ideal, yet he has always known he is female inside, not male despite his outward appearance. He is heterosexual, attracted to women not men, but he has always felt he was not a male deep within his psyche. Science supports this issue that gender attraction and gender identification are two separate issues. Because he has felt he has no choice but to be who he is, Jenner has suffered both economic and social consequences. Why would someone choose to be this way if it were not so compelling as to not be a choice at all?

But these facts seem impossible for a large segment of religious folk to accept. It struck me that expecting them to accept the truth, the facts, the evidence regarding homosexuality, transgender issues, evolution and other scientific evidence is impossible for them; that it is just as crazy to expect them to accept this reality as it is for the rest of us to accept that they cannot help but think they way they do. They are not being obstinate or evil or mean spirited. They simply cannot accept or appreciate what seems so obvious to others. Hence they deny the facts science presents and honestly believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to pervert the truth.

I don’t pretend to understand why this is so, but I am willing to accept that their science denial is as rigidly fixed as is gender attraction and identity. In other words, perhaps they have no more choice about denying scientific truth than homosexuals and heterosexuals have in denying who they are attracted to.

So, the affirmative of this subtopic is:
The refusal to accept evolution, a billions of years old Earth, climate change, homosexuality, and transgender issues is:
A. Science denial
B. These issues are related
C. Religious belief plays a role in denying the science behind these facts
D. People who deny these facts have little or no choice in their denial (they can't help it).

Finally, more for discussion than debate: "What is it about these religions that in large segments, causes the denial of obvious truths as confirmed by scientific discovery and experiments?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 130 by instantc]

Yes, popular opinion is relevant, and maybe more so than we imagine. Statistics prove that a wide sampling of popular opinion is almost always much more accurate than is first imagined. (There are instances of compiling guesses of multiple people on the number of beans in a jar or the weight of a cow or some such, and the average of all guesses is almost always far more precise than anyone would imagine). Then again, sometimes everyone is completely wrong; thus, while popular opinion is useful to make a guess, it might be totally wrong (as in the case of Thor's hammer causing thunder and the sun going round the earth).

IMHO, popular opinion is an indicator to use in hypothesis generation. It is not sufficient for belief or faith based action unless you don't mind being completely wrong. For instance, just because everyone acts as if walking a certain way across the street is law does not mean that they believe it is a law and, more importantly, that behavior is ZERO indication of any law existing whereas it is a perfect indicator of a social understanding being present: "Most people don't do this sort of walking in the street so I shall follow that social understanding and act likewise."

The rabbit trails in this discussion are obfuscating the various points being made unless they are each explored and explained separately and to their logical conclusion. And certainly we must not allow the harmful conflation of such terms as "indicator of," "proof," "all money bet on," and "belief/faith." Decide where you are and why and argue from your stance with a direct syllogism aimed at your central claim.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 130 by instantc]

Yes, popular opinion is relevant, and maybe more so than we imagine. Statistics prove that a wide sampling of popular opinion is almost always much more accurate than is first imagined. (There are instances of compiling guesses of multiple people on the number of beans in a jar or the weight of a cow or some such, and the average of all guesses is almost always far more precise than anyone would imagine). Then again, sometimes everyone is completely wrong; thus, while popular opinion is useful to make a guess, it might be totally wrong (as in the case of Thor's hammer causing thunder and the sun going round the earth).

IMHO, popular opinion is an indicator to use in hypothesis generation. It is not sufficient for belief or faith based action unless you don't mind being completely wrong. For instance, just because everyone acts as if walking a certain way across the street is law does not mean that they believe it is a law and, more importantly, that behavior is ZERO indication of any law existing whereas it is a perfect indicator of a social understanding being present: "Most people don't do this sort of walking in the street so I shall follow that social understanding and act likewise."

The rabbit trails in this discussion are obfuscating the various points being made unless they are each explored and explained separately and to their logical conclusion. And certainly we must not allow the harmful conflation of such terms as "indicator of," "proof," "all money bet on," and "belief/faith." Decide where you are and why and argue from your stance with a direct syllogism aimed at your central claim.

I agree essentially, but I think that while the popular opinion never constitutes proof for anything, it is in some instances such a strong indicator of truth that it comes close to certainty. For example, the fact that everyone believes that Japan exists is a sufficient indicator for me to be near certain that Japan actually exists, there simply isn't another plausible explanation for that popular belief in the present day circumstances. Obviously there is also proof available, but that is superfluous as the popular opinion is in itself a sufficient indicator.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 132 by instantc]

I disagree. Each person decides what constitutes "sufficient evidence." But some people don't require as much evidence as others to throw their faith into the mix. The greater issue is when a person considers weak evidence to be sufficient for some propositions but not for other propositions: hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 130 by instantc]

Yes, popular opinion is relevant, and maybe more so than we imagine. Statistics prove that a wide sampling of popular opinion is almost always much more accurate than is first imagined. (There are instances of compiling guesses of multiple people on the number of beans in a jar or the weight of a cow or some such, and the average of all guesses is almost always far more precise than anyone would imagine). Then again, sometimes everyone is completely wrong; thus, while popular opinion is useful to make a guess, it might be totally wrong (as in the case of Thor's hammer causing thunder and the sun going round the earth).

IMHO, popular opinion is an indicator to use in hypothesis generation. It is not sufficient for belief or faith based action unless you don't mind being completely wrong. For instance, just because everyone acts as if walking a certain way across the street is law does not mean that they believe it is a law and, more importantly, that behavior is ZERO indication of any law existing whereas it is a perfect indicator of a social understanding being present: "Most people don't do this sort of walking in the street so I shall follow that social understanding and act likewise."

The rabbit trails in this discussion are obfuscating the various points being made unless they are each explored and explained separately and to their logical conclusion. And certainly we must not allow the harmful conflation of such terms as "indicator of," "proof," "all money bet on," and "belief/faith." Decide where you are and why and argue from your stance with a direct syllogism aimed at your central claim.

I agree essentially, but I think that while the popular opinion never constitutes proof for anything, it is in some instances such a strong indicator of truth that it comes close to certainty. For example, the fact that everyone believes that Japan exists is a sufficient indicator for me to be near certain that Japan actually exists, there simply isn't another plausible explanation for that popular belief in the present day circumstances. Obviously there is also proof available, but that is superfluous as the popular opinion is in itself a sufficient indicator.

The fact that Japan exists does not short circuit the logical fallacy. That is simply an example of where the popular view is correct, there are ever-so-many examples of where the popular view is not. It is not dependable 100% of the time, that is why it is a logical fallacy.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 132 by instantc]

I disagree. Each person decides what constitutes "sufficient evidence." But some people don't require as much evidence as others to throw their faith into the mix.

I suppose this is correct. But, I think that we should be able to have a conversation where things like "reasonable amount of evidence" or "sufficient indicator" have more or less commonly understood meanings.

The greater issue is when a person considers weak evidence to be sufficient for some propositions but not for other propositions: hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

I agree.

[instantc]

t is superfluous as the popular opinion is in itself a sufficient indicator.

The fact that Japan exists does not short circuit the logical fallacy. That is simply an example of where the popular view is correct[/quote]

It's not just an example of where the popular view is correct, it's an example of where the popular view is a reliable indicator of the truth. I have never been to Japan, and yet I know it's there.

there are ever-so-many examples of where the popular view is not. It is not dependable 100% of the time, that is why it is a logical fallacy.

No, it would be a logical fallacy to say that the truth value of a proposition logically follows from the popular opinion. To say that the popular opinion is in some instances a reliable indicator of truth, as with the existence of Japan, is just a true statement.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 132 by instantc]

I disagree. Each person decides what constitutes "sufficient evidence." But some people don't require as much evidence as others to throw their faith into the mix.

I suppose this is correct. But, I think that we should be able to have a conversation where things like "reasonable amount of evidence" or "sufficient indicator" have more or less commonly understood meanings.

The greater issue is when a person considers weak evidence to be sufficient for some propositions but not for other propositions: hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

I agree.

Most fields in science have a defined "reasonable amount of evidence" or "sufficient indicator" in terms of a set probability. Works much better, it's a lot cleaner than opinion and faith which are, in the final analysis, never found reasonable or sufficient to overcome a case of blinkered faith.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 132 by instantc]

I disagree. Each person decides what constitutes "sufficient evidence." But some people don't require as much evidence as others to throw their faith into the mix.

I suppose this is correct. But, I think that we should be able to have a conversation where things like "reasonable amount of evidence" or "sufficient indicator" have more or less commonly understood meanings.

The greater issue is when a person considers weak evidence to be sufficient for some propositions but not for other propositions: hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

I agree.

Most fields in science have a defined "reasonable amount of evidence" or "sufficient indicator" in terms of a set probability. Works much better, it's a lot cleaner than opinion and faith which are, in the final analysis, never found reasonable or sufficient to overcome a case of blinkered faith.

That's also what the courts of law have done in legal theory. However, in many situations it is just no way of calculating the probability, and thus the final judgment is essentially arbitrary.

For example, suppose you have one slightly uncertain eye-witness for a regular event, such as murder. Most would probably agree that that does not in itself constitute sufficient evidence for a conviction. Now, add another eye-witness and then another and another and so forth. At some point between one and a thousand eye-witnesses everybody will agree that there is sufficient evidence. Whose to say at which point the evidence is sufficient? At the 7th eye-witness perhaps or at the 40th?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 132 by instantc]

I disagree. Each person decides what constitutes "sufficient evidence." But some people don't require as much evidence as others to throw their faith into the mix.

I suppose this is correct. But, I think that we should be able to have a conversation where things like "reasonable amount of evidence" or "sufficient indicator" have more or less commonly understood meanings.

The greater issue is when a person considers weak evidence to be sufficient for some propositions but not for other propositions: hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

I agree.

Most fields in science have a defined "reasonable amount of evidence" or "sufficient indicator" in terms of a set probability. Works much better, it's a lot cleaner than opinion and faith which are, in the final analysis, never found reasonable or sufficient to overcome a case of blinkered faith.

That's also what the courts of law have done in legal theory. However, in many situations it is just no way of calculating the probability, and thus the final judgment is essentially arbitrary.

For example, suppose you have one slightly uncertain eye-witness for a regular event, such as murder. Most would probably agree that that does not in itself constitute sufficient evidence for a conviction. Now, add another eye-witness and then another and another and so forth. At some point between one and a thousand eye-witnesses everybody will agree that there is sufficient evidence. Whose to say at which point the evidence is sufficient? At the 7th eye-witness perhaps or at the 40th?

Bad example I fear. Modern neuroscience (unlike the antiquated legal system) would say that eye-witness data has a serious risk of being faulty from the get go and degrades with each retelling. For the sake of your example (pretending the such evidence is worth a damn) science would say 9 out of 10, at a minimum. A conviction should be "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that should be a judgement call rather than a popularity contest.

[instantc]

Modern neuroscience (unlike the antiquated legal system) would say that eye-witness data has a serious risk of being faulty from the get go and degrades with each retelling. For the sake of your example (pretending the such evidence is worth a damn) science would say 9 out of 10, at a minimum. A conviction should be "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that should be a judgement call rather than a popularity contest.

So in essence you are saying that if a thousand people saw a man stabbing another man on a clear day in normal circumstances, and nobody saw otherwise, that would not be reliable enough to convict that person?

At this point I simply have to politely disagree with you "scientific" standards of evidence.