CHARBONNEAU – Listen to the science, not necessarily the scientists
(Image: ClimateStrikeCanada.org)
SCIENTISTS ARE SOMETIMES quoted to support erroneous claims.
Like everyone, scientists can have flawed opinions. But unlike everyone, their opinions are elevated because they are thought to have extraordinary insights.
It is the scientific method that makes scientists credible and you don’t have to be a scientist to use it. You become a scientist, even if an amateur one, when you use the scientific method.
Natural curiosity is the starting point. Why is the sky blue? Make an educated guess and prepare a rigorous test. Gather evidence to support the validity of your guess. Analyze the results and see if they support your hypothesis. Be prepared to admit that you were wrong.
Famous scientists sometimes step outside of their field of expertise.
Two-time Nobel Prize winner (Chemistry and Peace), Linus Pauling, promoted high doses of vitamin C as a cure for the common cold and even cancer, despite limited scientific evidence for these claims.
Co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, James Watson, made several controversial and scientifically unsupported statements regarding race and intelligence.
Physicist John F. Clauser, a 2022 Nobel Laureate for his contributions to quantum science is a self-declared climate change denier. He has been taking to podiums around the world to argue against the scientific consensus that the planet is undergoing dangerous warming.
The scientific method is uncomplicated. It involves a core set of principles: curiosity, observation, questioning, testing, and refining based on evidence.
Because the discoveries of science are sometimes baffling, social media users imagine that the fog of science will support misinformation.
Social media users confuse research with science. Looking something up is not the scientific method. In an online debate, they say: “I’ve done my research,” in support of a position they hold. But the scientific method does not support assumptions; it rigorously tests the validity of them.
In the name of scientific investigation, they seek information that confirms their existing beliefs. It’s called confirmation bias. Social media creates echo chambers where users are exposed only to information they agree with. “Research” done in such an environment validates the points of view of a closed group.
Confirmation bias can serve a useful purpose. On a social level, it plays an important role in the cohesion of a group as a way of reinforcing shared beliefs and values. When members of a group encounter information that confirms their existing views, it strengthens the sense of belonging and in-group identity. This can be helpful for social support and collective action.
However, confirmation bias can create tribes who are delusional. Social users who blindly misconstrue “research” as a substitute for fact-checking belong to a group that adheres to misinformation.
On a philosophical level, confirmation bias provides a rational way of navigating the world. It provides continuity of our perceptions: “yes, I’m still sitting in my easy chair drinking a cup of coffee and my moment-by-moment experience confirms that I’m not falling into a bottomless pit.”
The positive effect of confirmation bias provides a map in which we function in a chaotic world.
However, doubt the opinions of so-called experts when they stray from their area of expertise and stick with the science.
David Charbonneau is a retired TRU electronics instructor who hosts a blog at http://www.eyeviewkamloops.wordpress.com.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
People who buck the status quo are often, with time, proven to be right. If scientists all had to agree, we would probably still think the sun revolves around the earth.
Noam Chomsky was a linguist, but his commentary on geopolitics is renowned. Leonardo da Vinci was an artist but his engineering and human physiology discoveries are well known. Isaac Asimov was a writer, but his ideas about robots and black holes are respected today.
Thank goodness for independent thinkers who stray from the boxes society puts them in.
LikeLike
David writes” confirmation bias provides a map in which we function in a chaotic world”. Should we not ask where does the conformation bias come from? Please David how does confirmation bias provide “a rational way of navigating the world”? Confirmation bias in most cases is nothing more than opinion which leads to self-righteousness which pops up on a daily basis in the most influential circles on earth, without a shred of evidence.
We have a very high opinion of ourself and of our supposed values. The following cliches are used over and over again telling us that we are “leader of the free world”, we hold “shared values” in a “civilized world” where “free and open rules-based order” dominates. This is fake and betrayal of original thought and evidence invalidated by our treatment of those who provide contrary facts.
Is confirmation bias responsible for the deplorable state of the Canadian social structure, its education, healthcare, standard of living, which is visible in every school, hospital, food bank and on every street in Canada? It must be since we accept it. Everyone has an opinion on this but very few ask why and who benefits from this one-dimensional thinking?
Media ignores to ask why does the Canadian public continue to ignore this national decline? Why don’t we have enough water bombers while Ottawa is slated to spend 2% of GDP on the military? Trudeau wants to spend over $60 billion annually and this while British Columbia and Alberta burns.
There are not enough shoes in the universe to respond to this national disgrace correctly. Confirmation bias controls how people think about what’s going on in their world. Media control of the confirmation bias bamboozle and confirms the shared “OPINION” of how-it-is stories about what’s happening and what’s true. Once the bamboozle sinks in then they can advance any agenda they want.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s how science “works” these days…
Take 10 scientists and put them in a room; then give them a simple hypothesis to mull over. Like how does fire burn? Why is water wet? What makes the wind blow? Coke or Pepsi?
Now by being faithful to the scientific method, each 10 of those scientists would have differing conclusions to that hypothesis. Maybe all 10 would agree. Maybe only 5 agree with one way, and the other 5 discovers something different. Perhaps there is only 1 out of the 10 with a radical different, yet plausible conclusion…. Regardless of the results, the one constant remains is that science is always an on going process, never an absolute concrete final answer to a question.
However the current problem with science is that in that same room, you invite a politician or a corporate lobbyist inside, and they’ll pick and choose which scientist they NEED to fit their narrative and fulfill their agendas. Say 9 out of 10 scientists agree on one result, but that 1 outlier somehow gets to sit in the big chair, with the long verbose job title, and is given the power to browbeat the public into their idealism…. into ‘submission’… Decriminalization of hard drugs that have tripled overdose deaths… COVID mandates that have since been proven ineffective since the get-go… Climate Change that somehow has become a world-ending event that demands the people get taxed into poverty for; when Canada doesn’t even register as a main offender of global pollution. “Somebody” cherry-picked various scientists around the country because they believed that one person had all the answers, when there are multiple more scientists who’ll disagree.
Politicians, especially the current reigning Liberals and their NDP lackeys, have trivialized what ‘science’ means now.
LikeLike
Total nonsensical comment. The scientific method is the best method humanity “invented” and it provided you with all of the comforts of modern life. Just because it may inconvenience you it is no premise to disqualify the same scientific method as applied to climate change, global warming and environmental degradation caused by human activities. The most intellectually obtuse thing to say in my opinion is that we must do nothing because we are a small country relatively speaking. Suffice to say Canadians are the most wasteful populace in the worlds, contributing astronomically per capita to the problem.
LikeLike
So you rely on the word on one person? ONE corruptible, biased, ill-informed person. Lacking in intelligence that somehow failed upwards through his entire life through nepotism, which landed them in a position of power to impose mandates that serve to more nefarious machinations, rather than for the betterment of humanity?
… ONE person?
That’s not how the scientific method would work. You’re basically resigning knowledge on the say-so of that one person who probably thinks fire is created by butterscotch pudding. Meanwhile there are probably 9 other scientists out in the field with other theories worth exploring, yet don’t have the clout that single person you rely on has.
I mean, if that isn’t ‘obtuse’ in of itself, what is?
LikeLike