Causes of Rejecting Scientific Consensus

[Jose Fly]

In another thread I expressed that I don't really understand many of the behaviors I frequently see from creationists. One of those behaviors is how they seem to not only think themselves experts in a wide variety of scientific fields, they seem to believe that their knowledge and expertise is superior to the actual professionals in those fields. Thus, we often see them attempt to debate against the work of professionals by mere assertion (IOW, "because I say so").

In that earlier thread, several folks (correctly) noted that such behavior can be explained by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. While I agree that it explains what they're doing, it still doesn't really explain why they do it or how they are seemingly oblivious to it.

The other day I came across this article....

Overconfidence and Opposition to Scientific Consensus

The recent study – Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues, by Nicholas Light et al, is not surprising but is reassuringly solid in its outcome. The researchers compared peoples objective knowledge about various controversial topics (their knowledge of objective facts), with their subjective knowledge (assessment of their own knowledge) and opposition to consensus views. They found a robust effect in which opposition increased as the gap between objective and subjective knowledge increased (see graphs above the fold).

This may remind you of Dunning Kruger – the less people know the more they overestimate their knowledge (although subjective knowledge still decreases, just not as fast as objective knowledge). This is more of a super DK, those who know the least think they know the most. This has been found previously with specific topics – safety of GM food, genetic manipulation, and vaccines and autism. In addition to the super DK effect, this study shows that is correlates well with opposition to scientific consensus.

This study does not fully establish what causes such opposition, just correlates it with a dramatic lack of humility, lack of knowledge, and overestimation of one’s knowledge. There are studies and speculation trying to discern the ultimate causes of this pattern, and they are likely different for different issues. The classic explanation is the knowledge deficit model, that this pattern emerges as a result of lack of objective knowledge. But his model is mostly not true for most topics, although knowledge is still important and can even be dominant with some issues, like GM food. There is also the “cultural cognition” model, which posits that people hold beliefs in line with their culture (including political, social, and religious subcultures). This also is highly relevant for some issues more than others, like rejection of evolutionary science.

Other factors that have been implicated include cognitive style, with intuitive thinkers being more likely to fall into this opposition pattern than analytical thinkers. Intuitive thinking also correlates with another variable, conspiracy thinking, that also correlates with the rejection of consensus. Conspiracy thinking seems to occur in two flavors. There is opportunistic conspiracy thinking in which it seems to be not the driver of the false belief but a reinforcer. But there are also dedicated conspiracy theorists, who will accept any conspiracy, for which conspiracy thinking appears to be the driver.

So to put this in context of my question (why do some exhibit the D-K Effect), the research described in this article indicates that it's due to a combination of factors: lack of humility, one's cultural environment, intuitive-type thinking, conspiracy thinking

The topic for debate: Do you agree with that? Do you see this "super D-K" applying to some of the discussions/debates in this forum? Do you think there are other factors the researchers may have missed?

For me, these explanations line up quite well with the behaviors I commonly notice among creationists, most notably the lack of humility. IMO, that explains why creationists are so prone to argue via empty assertion. They think so highly of themselves, they figure "because I say so" is a valid form of argumentation and don't seem to really understand why the rest of us don't.

[Purple Knight]

I don't see rejection of the scientific consensus as unfair. And I don't think it represents thinking their conclusions are better than the experts' conclusions. I think it represents not trusting the experts. Science is plagued by a replicability crisis, and even if you don't know about it, you have no obligation to trust what somebody tells you if you don't personally understand it, no matter what they're considered experts in. If I don't know that the process by which they become experts is fair, then I'm not going to trust. And if I don't know they're not all lying, then I'm not going to trust in that case, either.

You may as well ask why people like me don't trust the consensus of religious experts. Theologians go to school for years and years to learn about God. Why don't I trust their expertise? Well, because it's a stacked deck and I don't have an obligation to trust people or organisations.

Trust is earned. I don't know when trust became a given where you can do nothing to earn it and then demand "How dare you?" on people who don't yield absolute trust, but I don't like it, and I will defend any religioso not taking a scientific consensus at face value because if they don't understand it they shouldn't trust random people giving other random people random pieces of paper.

Here's an example. Let's say I make extra sure to hand my waitress a tip because I'm paying in cash, and somebody might walk off with it. Somebody nearby takes offence. "I'm the only one around. How dare you even think I would walk off with that?! How awful that you would think that of me. You're a monster, and paranoid."

The right response is, there's a difference between you not being a thief and me knowing that you ain't a thief. I don't know that. Don't expect me to just trust that. And in a rational world that wouldn't cause anybody any umbrage.

In other words, don't dis faith and then expect faith. Faith is bad. It's trust unearned.

[Jose Fly]

I don't see rejection of the scientific consensus as unfair.

I don't recall anyone describing it as "unfair".

And I don't think it represents thinking their conclusions are better than the experts' conclusions.

When it comes to creationists, it most certainly does.

I think it represents not trusting the experts.

Sure, but the question is why don't they trust the experts? Have they taken the time to look at and review their work, and in doing so did they find specific fundamental flaws? When it comes to creationists, the answer is almost always "no". Their lack of trust in experts isn't rooted in that, and instead is rooted in a very simple dynamic....the experts' conclusions conflict with their religious beliefs, thus the experts must not only be wrong but are part of some sort of anti-gods conspiracy and/or are operating on behalf of devils.

Science is plagued by a replicability crisis, and even if you don't know about it, you have no obligation to trust what somebody tells you if you don't personally understand it, no matter what they're considered experts in. If I don't know that the process by which they become experts is fair, then I'm not going to trust. And if I don't know they're not all lying, then I'm not going to trust in that case, either.

My bet is, you trust experts more than you realize. Unless you've become independently knowledgeable in everything, at some point you have to rely on and trust professionals, be it for plumbing, electrical work, car repair, IT work, medicine, law, tree care, chemistry...

You may as well ask why people like me don't trust the consensus of religious experts. Theologians go to school for years and years to learn about God. Why don't I trust their expertise? Well, because it's a stacked deck and I don't have an obligation to trust people or organisations.

I hope you appreciate the fundamental differences between religion and science, and how they render this an inapt analogy.

Trust is earned. I don't know when trust became a given where you can do nothing to earn it and then demand "How dare you?" on people who don't yield absolute trust, but I don't like it, and I will defend any religioso not taking a scientific consensus at face value because if they don't understand it they shouldn't trust random people giving other random people random pieces of paper.

I've never seen anything like what you're talking about.

Here's an example. Let's say I make extra sure to hand my waitress a tip because I'm paying in cash, and somebody might walk off with it. Somebody nearby takes offence. "I'm the only one around. How dare you even think I would walk off with that?! How awful that you would think that of me. You're a monster, and paranoid."

The right response is, there's a difference between you not being a thief and me knowing that you ain't a thief. I don't know that. Don't expect me to just trust that. And in a rational world that wouldn't cause anybody any umbrage.

In other words, don't dis faith and then expect faith. Faith is bad. It's trust unearned.

That's another inapt analogy. Scientists go out of their way to be transparent in their work. That's why published papers have sections titled "methods", "results", "conclusions", and "discussion". All of that is there for anyone to read if they're interested in how they collected data, analyzed it, and reached conclusions.

That's nothing at all like the guy sitting at a nearby table.

[Inquirer]

One should ask the question - has an established consensus amongst some group of scientists ever turned out to be wrong? - if the answer is "Yes" then there is a reasonable basis for being skeptical of consensus based claims, that's it, that's all that needs to be said here, it's not a particularly interesting question.

[Jose Fly]

One should ask the question - has an established consensus amongst some group of scientists ever turned out to be wrong? - if the answer is "Yes" then there is a reasonable basis for being skeptical of consensus based claims, that's it, that's all that needs to be said here, it's not a particularly interesting question.

Being "skeptical" implies a level of tentativeness, where the person withholds acceptance but is still open to it, pending further data, better analyses, etc. That's not the case with creationists. Their rejection is rooted in how they see the conclusions of scientists as conflicting with their religious beliefs.

That's why we see creationists like you ignore data (e.g., observed speciation, preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals, examples of gradualism, tests showing human/primate common ancestry is a vastly superior explanation than separate origins). A true skeptic would examine that info objectively and adjust their position accordingly. A denialist simply waves it away and continues on as if it never existed.

[Inquirer]

One should ask the question - has an established consensus amongst some group of scientists ever turned out to be wrong? - if the answer is "Yes" then there is a reasonable basis for being skeptical of consensus based claims, that's it, that's all that needs to be said here, it's not a particularly interesting question.

Being "skeptical" implies a level of tentativeness, where the person withholds acceptance but is still open to it, pending further data, better analyses, etc. That's not the case with some creationists. Their rejection seems to me to be sometimes rooted in how they see the conclusions of scientists as conflicting with their religious beliefs.

That's possibly why we see creationists like you interpret data differently (e.g., observed speciation, preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals, examples of gradualism, tests showing human/primate common ancestry is in my opinion a vastly superior explanation than separate origins). A true skeptic would examine that info objectively and adjust their position accordingly. A denialist simply waves it away and continues on as if it never existed.

Corrections in red above, other than that, a good effort overall. But you failed to answer the question I asked, here it is again: has an established consensus amongst some group of scientists ever turned out to be wrong? if you don't know then just say that, but ignoring the question does you no service, especially as you are openly critical of others who ignore things, as if my question "never existed" so to speak, bordering on hypocrisy even.

[Purple Knight]

Sure, but the question is why don't they trust the experts? Have they taken the time to look at and review their work, and in doing so did they find specific fundamental flaws? When it comes to creationists, the answer is almost always "no". Their lack of trust in experts isn't rooted in that, and instead is rooted in a very simple dynamic....the experts' conclusions conflict with their religious beliefs, thus the experts must not only be wrong but are part of some sort of anti-gods conspiracy and/or are operating on behalf of devils.

If that really is their motivation then I'm with you in calling it out.

My bet is, you trust experts more than you realize. Unless you've become independently knowledgeable in everything, at some point you have to rely on and trust professionals, be it for plumbing, electrical work, car repair, IT work, medicine, law, tree care, chemistry...

I trust experts exactly as much as I realise, and because of this, out in the real world, I'm constantly derided and insulted for being paranoid. The reason this is a great example is because there absolutely are dishonest car repairmen. Wherever there is a specific knowledge laymen lack and this one group has, they can and will use it to exploit people. My experience has been that electricians may overcharge you, but are honest enough not to deliberately ruin your wiring so it will blow up and they can come back and rake it in. Plumbers too. There are industries I've never had that problem with and thus I have some degree of trust. Car repair is another matter. Electronics repair is up there with car repair. If you want proof just look up some old John Stossel consumer report stuff. He would bring a TV with loose part to a repair shop and some shops would say, this has a loose part, while some would just lie and milk the hapless consumer for everything he's got.

You may as well ask why people like me don't trust the consensus of religious experts. Theologians go to school for years and years to learn about God. Why don't I trust their expertise? Well, because it's a stacked deck and I don't have an obligation to trust people or organisations.

I hope you appreciate the fundamental differences between religion and science, and how they render this an inapt analogy.

From the point of view of someone who does not understand the methodology and must therefore trust, it's relevantly equal.

Since most people do not understand the scientific methodology and trust anyway, for their part it's the same as religious faith.

It's only different for the person who has the intellect necessary to understand the subject at hand, and actually goes through the effort of thinking critically and validating the methodology at each step. Are there many of those in general?

In other words, don't dis faith and then expect faith. Faith is bad. It's trust unearned.

That's another inapt analogy. Scientists go out of their way to be transparent in their work. That's why published papers have sections titled "methods", "results", "conclusions", and "discussion". All of that is there for anyone to read if they're interested in how they collected data, analyzed it, and reached conclusions.

They go out of their way to be transparent in their methodology, but there's nothing stopping them from simply fudging their data. This is where it becomes like the guy at the other table. I'm not trying to accuse anyone of fudging data but it's so easy to do so, with a built-in motivation to get the desired result and prove one's theory, so much so that I won't simply trust that it doesn't go on. The replicability crisis indicates that it probably does go on.

[Inquirer]

Sure, but the question is why don't they trust the experts? Have they taken the time to look at and review their work, and in doing so did they find specific fundamental flaws? When it comes to creationists, the answer is almost always "no". Their lack of trust in experts isn't rooted in that, and instead is rooted in a very simple dynamic....the experts' conclusions conflict with their religious beliefs, thus the experts must not only be wrong but are part of some sort of anti-gods conspiracy and/or are operating on behalf of devils.

If that really is their motivation then I'm with you in calling it out.

My bet is, you trust experts more than you realize. Unless you've become independently knowledgeable in everything, at some point you have to rely on and trust professionals, be it for plumbing, electrical work, car repair, IT work, medicine, law, tree care, chemistry...

I trust experts exactly as much as I realise, and because of this, out in the real world, I'm constantly derided and insulted for being paranoid. The reason this is a great example is because there absolutely are dishonest car repairmen. Wherever there is a specific knowledge laymen lack and this one group has, they can and will use it to exploit people. My experience has been that electricians may overcharge you, but are honest enough not to deliberately ruin your wiring so it will blow up and they can come back and rake it in. Plumbers too. There are industries I've never had that problem with and thus I have some degree of trust. Car repair is another matter. Electronics repair is up there with car repair. If you want proof just look up some old John Stossel consumer report stuff. He would bring a TV with loose part to a repair shop and some shops would say, this has a loose part, while some would just lie and milk the hapless consumer for everything he's got.

You may as well ask why people like me don't trust the consensus of religious experts. Theologians go to school for years and years to learn about God. Why don't I trust their expertise? Well, because it's a stacked deck and I don't have an obligation to trust people or organisations.

I hope you appreciate the fundamental differences between religion and science, and how they render this an inapt analogy.

From the point of view of someone who does not understand the methodology and must therefore trust, it's relevantly equal.

Since most people do not understand the scientific methodology and trust anyway, for their part it's the same as religious faith.

It's only different for the person who has the intellect necessary to understand the subject at hand, and actually goes through the effort of thinking critically and validating the methodology at each step. Are there many of those in general?

In other words, don't dis faith and then expect faith. Faith is bad. It's trust unearned.

That's another inapt analogy. Scientists go out of their way to be transparent in their work. That's why published papers have sections titled "methods", "results", "conclusions", and "discussion". All of that is there for anyone to read if they're interested in how they collected data, analyzed it, and reached conclusions.

They go out of their way to be transparent in their methodology, but there's nothing stopping them from simply fudging their data. This is where it becomes like the guy at the other table. I'm not trying to accuse anyone of fudging data but it's so easy to do so, with a built-in motivation to get the desired result and prove one's theory, so much so that I won't simply trust that it doesn't go on. The replicability crisis indicates that it probably does go on.

I'd like hear Jose's answer my rather elementary question still, seems he wants to simply ignore it, I wonder why he'd do such a thing right after being so disapproving of those who ignore stuff...

[Jose Fly]

One should ask the question - has an established consensus amongst some group of scientists ever turned out to be wrong? - if the answer is "Yes" then there is a reasonable basis for being skeptical of consensus based claims, that's it, that's all that needs to be said here, it's not a particularly interesting question.

Being "skeptical" implies a level of tentativeness, where the person withholds acceptance but is still open to it, pending further data, better analyses, etc. That's not the case with some creationists. Their rejection seems to me to be sometimes rooted in how they see the conclusions of scientists as conflicting with their religious beliefs.

That's possibly why we see creationists like you interpret data differently (e.g., observed speciation, preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals, examples of gradualism, tests showing human/primate common ancestry is in my opinion a vastly superior explanation than separate origins). A true skeptic would examine that info objectively and adjust their position accordingly. A denialist simply waves it away and continues on as if it never existed.

Corrections in red above, other than that, a good effort overall. But you failed to answer the question I asked, here it is again: has an established consensus amongst some group of scientists ever turned out to be wrong? if you don't know then just say that, but ignoring the question does you no service, especially as you are openly critical of others who ignore things, as if my question "never existed" so to speak, bordering on hypocrisy even.

You know, your whole "I interpret it differently" schtick would have more credibility if it weren't for what happened earlier. I asked you how you think we should tell which of competing interpretations is more likely to be true/accurate, and you answered that we do so via scientific testing. So I showed you where researchers applied scientific tests to the data and found that human/primate ancestry was much, much more likely to be true/accurate than separate human origins, and you simply ignored it and left.

So it seems this "I interpret it differently" is just an escape mechanism you employ.

As far as your question, of course scientific consensus has been wrong before. So?

[Jose Fly]

If that really is their motivation then I'm with you in calling it out.

Of course it is. If creationists' positions really were based on thorough and objective study of the science, they would actually be familiar it. Yet invariably they are surprisingly ignorant of the very subjects they attempt to argue against.

I trust experts exactly as much as I realise, and because of this, out in the real world, I'm constantly derided and insulted for being paranoid. The reason this is a great example is because there absolutely are dishonest car repairmen. Wherever there is a specific knowledge laymen lack and this one group has, they can and will use it to exploit people. My experience has been that electricians may overcharge you, but are honest enough not to deliberately ruin your wiring so it will blow up and they can come back and rake it in. Plumbers too. There are industries I've never had that problem with and thus I have some degree of trust. Car repair is another matter. Electronics repair is up there with car repair. If you want proof just look up some old John Stossel consumer report stuff. He would bring a TV with loose part to a repair shop and some shops would say, this has a loose part, while some would just lie and milk the hapless consumer for everything he's got.

Well it's not a binary, all-or-none situation where you either become an expert in everything yourself, or you rely on experts for everything. We all are experts in some things and rely on experts for other things.

From the point of view of someone who does not understand the methodology and must therefore trust, it's relevantly equal.

Since most people do not understand the scientific methodology and trust anyway, for their part it's the same as religious faith.

It's only different for the person who has the intellect necessary to understand the subject at hand, and actually goes through the effort of thinking critically and validating the methodology at each step. Are there many of those in general?

I can't recall meeting anyone who actually thinks religion and science operate via the same methodology. Have you?

They go out of their way to be transparent in their methodology, but there's nothing stopping them from simply fudging their data. This is where it becomes like the guy at the other table. I'm not trying to accuse anyone of fudging data but it's so easy to do so, with a built-in motivation to get the desired result and prove one's theory, so much so that I won't simply trust that it doesn't go on. The replicability crisis indicates that it probably does go on.

Yes, like with any other human enterprise, scientists could potentially just completely fake their work. What's your point?