Dogmatism in Science and Public Perception of Science

Over the last few weeks I have not had much personal time, but I have managed to take a few minutes here and there to peruse Internet sites from antivaxers, climate change deniers, anthropogenic climate change extremists, people against conventional agriculture, people opposed to genetically-modified crops, and activists opposed to nuclear energy. Given the polarized political environment, I have sought to understand how good people come to conclusions that could be so apparently inconsistent with evidence. All of us have drawn conclusions based on false pre conceptions, and the confirmation bias leads us to accept flawed or inconclusive evidence for our beliefs and to reject good evidence against those beliefs. Each of us cannot possibly understand the details of every important issue. In that light, it is easy to understand why political views have become so correlated with some vexing beliefs, such as why many political conservatives reject the role of human activities in climate change or why many on the left tend to question profound evidence with respect to the safety of genetically modified crops. Quite simply, we are dogmatic creatures.

Science has transformed the world, but it does not completely obliterate dogmatism from the layman or the scientist, nor does it efficiently convince the masses to discard cherished and harmful beliefs. Eric Hoffer put it well: “An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of stuffing anything into an empty head.” We reject correct principles not because we are stupid, but because our preconceptions are wrong. None of us is immune. Science and logic are partial treatments, much like taking over-the-counter cold medicine can alleviate some symptoms without curing the cold. When scientists reach conclusions, they might not have considered all aspects of the problems, and biases might mislead them. Scientists are not completely immune to these biases, and false conclusions similar to those perpetuated over decades or centuries in the past can still occur today (though it is apparent that the extent to which we are wrong tends to decline with time). Peer review, which is simply the act of requiring other sets of eyes beyond the original authors to view and consider conclusions, helps treat the problem but can also perpetuate it when reviewers can be equally dogmatic. Yet, I see science as the best way we have to reach correct conclusions.

My opening comments included both climate change deniers and anthropogenic climate change extremists as dogmatic. Both sides see the other as dogmatic, but not themselves. Both sides perpetuate some false claims in support of their views. I use the term "denier" here carefully. Scientists should be skeptical (that's core to being a scientist), but a denier is different: Deniers reject evidence contrary to their beliefs. Any such contrary evidence is often treated as part of a conspiracy. I see laypersons who are climate change deniers as more egregiously dogmatic, but that in no way lets pundits on the other side off the hook, some individuals among whom can be just as bad or worse. Yet, as I see it, most climate change deniers are not simply evil people lying for money (although a few of them might be). I think that most of them actually believe their claims. Perhaps it is easier for them to swallow when they combine rubbish with a few correct claims. For example, their argument that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has some benefits to some people and to some biological systems. Similarly, not all scary claims raised by proponents of the concept of anthropogenic climate change will ultimately prove to be true, and recent science has suggested that some of them are false. For example, some types of violent storms, such as the strongest tornadoes, might be becoming less common with time. Moderate intensity hurricanes may be becoming less frequent as well (though many studies suggest that the frequency of the strongest hurricanes may increase). The narrative that all things will get worse for all people and for all ecosystems is a fetish of the media and left leaning politics. 

We are all prone to dogmatic views. It is wise to take a step back and to ask ourselves why we believe some of the things we do, and to not simply demonize those who believe differently. That the crowd seems to agree with us is an insufficient argument in support of a belief. Oftentimes, those who are most sure of themselves are most wrong.  A nice quote, perhaps poorly attributed to Mark Twain says it well: “Education: The path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.”  I have personally undergone a profound transformation in the ways I view the world, based on relaxing my level of surety in my beliefs. It has led me to a better sense of self, and a more positive view of others. Science education, similarly, should include at its core the notion that science is not simply a set of conclusions or concepts with which most scientists agree, but a turbulent quest for understanding in light of evidence, seeking for wherever that evidence might lead.

My Response to Another Climate Change Comment on Youtube

Last night I received another interesting comment from another climate change discussion board on Youtube. This one was long and detailed, including many different arguments. I will not produce the person's comments here without his or her permission, but I will introduce the person's first claim, then reproduce my responses. I am sorry that it is a little bit rambling, but I expect that on the whole, those seeking information might find it useful. I include some commentary in square braces [ ].

Perhaps I wasted my time, but I think the discussion might be useful to other people on either side who might be open minded about the issue. I should say up front that I am not a climate alarmist. I am also not a climate change denier. I am a climate scientist with interest in this problem. I am not an expert in all aspects of the problem (as no single person can be).

The person's first complaint was that climate change science originated as guesswork:

Of course it was figured out by guess work. That's how science works. Scientists see an issue, make a guess--Then test it with evidence. That a theory starts as a guess is irrelevant in the end, because of all of the accumulated evidence and logical argument.

[My earlier comment, to which this person had responded, pointed out that a scientist who could overturn the whole concept of CO2-induced climate change would get a Nobel Prize--The person's comment suggested that this possibility was ridiculous to them. My response follows.]

Why would you suggest that my suggestion is ridiculous that someone would win a Nobel prize for overturning it? Because the amount of effort required to overturn the whole theory, including the bold and clear evidence required would be so profound that the person would clearly deserve the prize. [I should add, that I think a person making such a discovery along with the profound evidence required would almost certainly win a Nobel prize--my point is that a person could not get that far just by asserting that they think that most climate scientists are wrong--they would need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.]

[The person then asked "how are they (the scientists) so sure..."]

No good scientist is completely sure about human-induced climate change. The reason they are "so sure" is that they see evidence for it.

[The person then asserts that scientists have changed the language, from "global warming" to "climate change".]

Your supposed conflict between "climate change" and "global warming" is a straw man. Climate change refers to the whole set of changes, whereas "global warming" is one particular aspect. People still call it global warming, but when their interest is, for example, a reduced total number of hurricanes, increased drought in some parts of the world, increased floods in other parts, reduced tornado activity (perhaps), or ocean acidification, they refer to climate change.

[The person then asserts that science has often been wrong, and changes over time.]

Of course science has often been wrong. That's how science works. People's understanding of almost all natural systems has been improving over time, with new ideas supplanting the old ones. Yet, although there were a few papers in the 1970's discussing potential for global cooling, even then, more papers were published on longterm warming. The first paper on climate change by CO2 was before 1900, by Arrhenius.

Of course the climate has always been changing. That fact in no way refutes that humans can contribute to it today.

I do agree that some people in the environmental movement have developed almost religious behavior with respect to climate change. Also, some people trumpet the very worst possible outcomes as the most likely ones (although some such outcomes may be less likely, there is still the possibility of their development).

I wrote a blog yesterday responding to an assertion similar to yours that scientists make these claims to get grant money: http://roundyeducationblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/do-most-climate-scientists-argue-that.html 

[The person then discussed how he or she thinks that climate scientists are high priests in some kind of religion.]
Your comparison to religion may explain the behaviors of some environmentalists, but it cannot explain how ideas get through peer review. Peer review is a brutal process. An assertion of faith is insufficient, even if they refer to some aspect of anthropogenic climate change. [I should have noted here that many papers arguing for some particular responses in the climate system to climate change do in fact get rejected for too little evidence or poor arguments. Papers don't get accepted simply because they trumpet arguments consistent with the prevailing view.]

[The person then commented again that views of scientists have along history of changing.]

Aspects of scientists views about climate change will certainly change. For example, as evidence has accumulated, many climate scientists have concluded that the number of weak to moderate intensity tropical cyclones will actually decline with time in response to increasing CO2, and that accumulated snowfall in the Antarctic will actually increase for a while (because it is more often warm enough to snow than in the past). But your notion that the whole thing will get thrown out is quite unlikely. Increasing CO2 concentrations do, and will warm the earth. That's a fact measured in the lab: https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

What will almost certainly change is our understanding of how much warming will actually occur [a point that we will not be fully certain about until we measure it]. I personally don't anticipate the strongest warming amounts proposed, except perhaps in the Arctic. Negative feedbacks in the tropical regions seem too profound to me. Yet that in no way implies that no negative consequences are likely. Negative consequences are already occurring--especially in the Arctic.

Do Most Climate Scientists Argue that Climate Change is Mostly Caused by Human Activities in Order to Get Grant Money?

Earlier today I was reading a Youtube discussion board below an anti-anthropogenic climate change video. I read an interesting comment, which stated that many climate scientists support the view that human activities contribute substantially to climate change in order to get grants from the National Science Foundation. 

I think that this suggestion is completely ignorant of the process of peer review at NSF, and my own experience suggests it is ridiculous. No one gets a grant today based just on maintaining the status quo of the science, or to simply show that human activities have caused most modern climate change. Grants are awarded to address more specific questions. Even in climate science, peer review is brutal, and NSF declines a broad majority of proposals submitted. These proposals don't get declined simply because they disagree with the status quo either. The reality is that NSF proposals don't get funded without disagreeing with some aspect of the status quo, or without presenting a potential solution to some well defined problem that has not been previously addressed to the satisfaction of the scientists. Funded proposals are nearly always written to address questions for which the answers are unknown. Otherwise, they are outside of the mission of the NSF. Although it is apparently true that most climate scientists funded by NSF agree that human activities have influenced the climate, proposals don't get funded simply because they agree with that point of view.

For those who believe that NSF only grants money to work on climate science to those who accept the status quo and only if they address questions consistent with the status quo, I offer the following challenge. Submit a standard 15-page proposal on the climate change problem to the NSF directorate on climate and large-scale dynamics. Choose some aspect that agrees with the status quo, without contributing anything new, and good luck!

The Need for Complete Commitment to Freedom of Speech

Politics can learn much from freedom of speech in science. In recent years, segments of the American left have strived to silence the speech of those who question aspects of their agendas. I am a political centrist. I like to have my own ideas questioned, and I don’t think that any idea from anyone should be immune to criticism. I think that dealing with criticism is the best way to refine our ideas. Every claim important enough to consider as part of public policy should be justified or discarded. Recent years have taken political correctness to extreme. Under the guise of protection for the downtrodden, both written and unwritten laws have grown out of social norms, and activists have worked to silence expression of opposition to these norms. Although many such norms may be well founded, no idea can be justified simply by silencing opposing views. Activists raise cries of racism, misogyny, or homophobia to silence people, even when such claims might be completely irrelevant. I’m not denying that such claims can reflect reality, just that they become inappropriate when intended only to silence criticism. 

True justification of ideas is made by logical arguments, evidence, and reasoned debate. As I see it, the best way to protect the rights of those who might be oppressed is not to suppress the speech of others, but instead to counter such speech with supportive speech. In recent years, even university culture has tried to silence expression of unpopular or apparently offensive opinions. Student groups and even faculty occasionally work to silence people who might express perspectives with which they are uncomfortable. Sometimes the conflict is trivial. Back while I was a graduate student at Penn State, I recall broad campus discussion on the invitation of Fred Rogers, of Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood, to speak at graduation. Mr. Rogers was an accomplished educator of children, with what I saw as remarkable talent. At the time, his was the longest running show in the history of public television. Yet, hundreds of students took offense to his invitation and protested to university administration. They were offended because they thought that the university was treating them like children by inviting Mr. Rogers. They were so shortsighted that they could not see Mr. Rogers’ life’s work as relevant to them. I defend the students’ rights to express their own points of view, but I condemn their attempts to silence people by taking offense where none was merited. 

Universities must be inclusive and welcoming to all types of people. Yet, a healthy university-learning environment must include the possibility that any idea be considered critically, including those on questions on religion, race, and politics. Full and unadulterated freedom of speech is not a threat to a healthy society: It is indispensable! 

Expression of Doubt Is Central to Science and Scientific Teaching

As a professor, I want my students to think for themselves and to not completely trust what I tell them. I am not an authority over their opinions—I can only present evidence and arguments. There are no scientific authorities. Every scientist making a claim is expected to support it with evidence in peer review. Although well-established science is extremely difficult to refute because it entails large amounts of evidence collected over time, no scientific claim is immune to the potential to be rejected, disproved, or replaced with ideas that are better supported by evidence. No scientist is entitled to safe space for poorly supported claims, including in the classroom.

I try to follow the scientific process in my classroom. Although students in the classroom are unlikely to overturn prevailing scientific views, encouraging them to express their doubts and raise questions can make the process of learning mimic the process of scientific inquiry. I want students to express reasonable doubt and to criticize my claims. Furthermore, I think that students learn science better when they confront ideas they do not yet understand, with open minds. When students express doubt in a scientific finding because they do not understand it, that expression can help the teacher understand the nature of their misunderstandings. When I discover inadequate understanding I can take steps to clarify the concept.

Renewing My Approach to the Exam in the Information Age

A culture of testing and assessment has come to dominate public and higher education. The purposes of exams and the ways we give them have evolved over time. I decided to contemplate my own experience giving exams as a university professor. When I gave my first exam to undergraduate students years ago, I followed the unwritten law that assessment entails providing students with a set of questions or exercises that they answer themselves, without access to books, the Internet, or their neighbors. By tradition, analysis of their answers provides scores that reflect on the students’ academic records. I saw the exam as students’ opportunity to demonstrate that they understand the course concepts and can apply them in both simple and more advanced ways. I included questions that required them to apply combinations of the concepts of the course in ways not previously discussed, to assess their critical thinking skills. Typically the students would cram the night before, often going without sleep. Months later at the end of the course, I asked the students related questions on a final exam, only to find that many of them failed miserably, even when they responded correctly the first time.

The next year in the same course, I allowed the students to bring notecards crammed with equations and data from their notes. I found that as they worked to construct their cards, they reviewed their notes and became more familiar with the material. However, they still crammed the night before, soon forgot much of what they learned, and many of them were unable to solve problems that required them to think critically.

Since that year, my approach has continued to evolve. First, I allowed the students to consult the Internet while in the exam. Since my purpose was to assess their individual abilities to use the information at hand, I required that they not communicate with each other directly, through their phones, or through the Internet. Their ability to connect to the Internet changed the culture of my classroom. Students began to emphasize not the facts (which were readily available to them), but their understandings of key concepts. I found that their abilities to address deeper concept-based questions improved since my first years teaching.

My most recent exams were not even confined to the classroom. I am presently teaching a course in applied data analysis to graduate students. We recently studied Fourier techniques to analyze the “sizes” in time and space of signals in datasets obtained from measurements of natural systems. I decided to try an approach to exams completely new to me. I asked the students to find online a dataset relevant to a topic of interest to them. I asked them to analyze that dataset using Fourier techniques of their choice, and to explain their conclusions about the natures of the signals in their datasets. I did not specify the questions they should address. Upon completion about a week later, they e-mailed me their results. Each student’s project was unique. I created a simple rubric of my expectations in the context of their results, and I managed to find a satisfactory way to generate a fair grade. I think I learned more about their understandings of course concepts through this exercise than I would have learned from a more standard exam format, and I was later able to address their deficiencies in the classroom. 

My results argue that open-ended, student-driven projects can provide the students and their instructors clear assessment of their understandings and abilities. Exams that simulate the real world may be more difficult to grade objectively, but I think that they yield insights beyond trivia that really matter.