Why Does the Public Reject Science?
by Mailen Kootsey
A summary and commentary on: Keith B. Miller, “The Nature of Science and the Public Debate over Anthropogenic Global Warming,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 64, No, 4, pp 220-229 (December 2012).
The public is usually enthusiastic about new technologies for lifestyle, entertainment, communication, or exploration. Acceptance is much more reluctant, however, when scientific developments call for a change in belief or opinion. Why is it that a significant percentage of the public does not accept scientific consensus views on such topics as global warming, evolution, and vaccines? Writing in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Keith Miller analyzes the public debate over global warming, sorting out five misconceptions about the nature of science and the scientific community that distort the public evaluation of a carefully-researched scientific consensus.
FACTS
The first misconception in Miller’s list is that the public sees science as a search for unchanging scientific “facts”. “However,” says Miller, “if ‘fact’ means an objective statement of the true nature of the physical universe, there are very few ‘facts’ in science.” The best that scientists can do is to record observations and then build an approximate understanding of the natural world on these observations.
Even with the aid of remarkable new instruments and computers, recorded observations are still a limited snapshot of reality. There is no way to prove that more observations would not change a current view. Nevertheless, basing a theory of nature on experiments and observations does maintain a connection with reality. Scientists, as part of the scientific method, have practices designed to minimize the limitations of observation and theory. For example, repetition of an experiment is always necessary, not only by the initial observer, but also by other scientists – the more diverse, the better.
THEORY
Observations (data) by themselves are not helpful for living in a real universe, no matter how large the collection. What humans crave is accurate predictions, ways to know the results of myriad everyday choices. Human experience is just too diverse to predict by making an encyclopedia of all experience. Scientists are thus challenged to find consistent patterns in observations, showing that the natural world behaves in regular and predictable ways. With enough of these patterns, it may be possible to construct cause-effect relationships as shortcuts to making predictions. The process of going from observations to patterns and ultimately to cause-and-effect relationships is what it means to construct a scientific theory.
For scientific lay persons, the theories of science may seem indistinguishable from science fiction, guesses, or speculations. In actual practice, scientific theories are always based on observations. Imagination and creativity are required to find the patterns, but data always constrain the results. Also, theory building is not completed in a single attempt. Rather, a good theory is tested repeatedly with new experiments and observations. Some theories fail, but each successful test brings increasing confidence in a theory.
Skeptics sometimes complain that a theory based on observations has not been “proven.” True, scientific theories are never proven in the absolute sense that a mathematical theorem is proven from axioms. Instead, confidence in a scientific theory is increased by repeated and varied experimental tests.
UNCERTAINTY
Public detractors of science often raise the issue of the uncertainty in science. There are multiple sources of uncertainty in the scientific process: measurement precision, too little data, inherent randomness in the process under study, and an incomplete understanding of the natural mechanisms involved. Uncertainty is thus always present in attempting to predict natural events or outcomes. Scientists work to reduce uncertainties by various means, such as improving instrumentation and repeating experiments. A good scientific report describes not only the conclusions from the observations, but also the uncertainty in the conclusions.
The public can easily be made uncomfortable with science by quoting uncertainties when an important decision must be made. If a scientific theory is not “proven,” then it is not wise to act on the basis of the theory, it is argued. But scientific theories of natural processes are never proven in an absolute sense. The value of a theory is best described in terms of a level of confidence based on repeated testing. Pleas to wait for science to achieve an unobtainable level of certainty only produce delays. Even a theory with some uncertainty is a better basis for decision making than rumors, unsubstantiated claims, or outright guessing. Failure to act is also a decision that may have consequences.
IMPORTANCE OF SCALE AND CONTEXT
“Any process will act only within a particular range of time scales,” says Miller. Trends can only be recognized and understood in the context of a particular time and space scale. This principle is especially applicable to the current hot topic of climate change. Is hurricane Sandy or an especially hot summer evidence for climate change, for example?
Miller lists six major mechanisms that determine global climate: solar radiation, plate tectonics, ocean circulation, atmospheric composition, albedo, and human causes. These mechanisms have effects at time scales ranging from years to billions of years. Variations of some mechanisms can produce effects on widely different time scales. For example, ocean circulation can be at the root of changes on a scale of years (El Nino and La Nina oscillations) all the way to tens or hundreds of millions of years (changes in the shape or connections of ocean basins).
No single climate event or even an unusual season can by itself be attributed to climate change. Only trends studied over years or much longer intervals can be valid evidence for or against climate change. Similarly, unusual localized weather events are not evidence for global climate change. For example, in North America the Winter of 2009-2010 was unusually cold, but by itself, that observation is not evidence for or against global climate change because it refers to a limited region.
REJECTION OF SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
Any new scientific theory is not complete until it has been debated within the scientific community and a consensus is reached. This process includes replication of experiments under as wide a range of conditions as are appropriate and detailed comparison of the new theory with previous ideas and related concepts. The more diverse the participants in the discussion and the broader the range of disciplines brought to bear, the greater the weight given to the consensus. A consensus conclusion reached in this way is not easily overturned, and rightfully so.
The public can easily have quite a different view of the consensus process. The consensus, while it is a majority view, does not mean that everyone in the scientific community agrees with the conclusion. Without an understanding of uncertainty in science, an overwhelming consensus conclusion of the scientific community may be rejected because of a critical argument from one or a few individuals. The public is not likely to be able to give correct weights to the community consensus and the detractor’s idea, concluding therefore that the scientific consensus is not valid. The media may also reinforce the public’s mistaken conclusion by giving equal weight to dissenting scientific views that have limited credibility—all in the media’s attempt to give a “balanced” view.
“Consensus is also often rejected because of a perception that the majority is driven by social, political, or religious motives,” writes Miller. The public is accustomed to advocates of all kinds presenting selected or even manufactured “truths,” and they can easily regard the scientific consensus in the same way. “Uncomfortable scientific conclusions are dismissed as attempts to advance a hidden agenda. This is seen in the charges of materialism and atheism leveled at evolutionary biologists by those who see evolution as in conflict with the Bible.”
CONCLUSIONS
When a conclusion from the scientific community contradicts a widely-held public view, there are multiple reasons why the public might reject the scientific view. It is therefore essential for the value of the scientific case to be presented as a description of the real world derived by a careful and organized process from observations, with every effort made to eliminate personal biases and agendas. Uncertainty is always present in scientific theories, but they still represent the best efforts of a careful and dedicated community.
Interesting article.
I found several points of interest, a key one was this:
"A good scientific report describes not only the conclusions from the observations, but also the uncertainty in the conclusions."
My observations, at least here in Australia, is that the uncertainties have not been presented in a balanced way. The case for man caused climate change has been presented with too much certainty. This has caused suspicions about the politicization, motives etc of the climate change issue.
Policy makers have erred in this area. They perhaps have also erred in presenting the issue in the context of time and scale. The internet brings a wealth of information at the touch of a key. Sure, it is not always valid, but it is not hard for the average reader to get an impression of time and scale relative to climate change that one does not hear from the media or climate change sources. On this point, I would suggest that Miller could have done more to account for this factor.
Another point I note is this;
"No single climate event or even an unusual season can by itself be attributed to climate change. Only trends studied over years or much longer intervals can be valid evidence for or against climate change. Similarly, unusual localized weather events are not evidence for global climate change. "
This highlights an amusing pattern I see in Aus. When we get unusually wet, or cold weather patterns, the climate change media coverage seems to evaporate. When we get long dry spells, or drought like conditions they begin to shower us with climate change. This "single" or "unusual" season responsiveness has done little for the climate change cuase.
Perhaps the most significant point Miller makes is this:
"Any new scientific theory is not complete until it has been debated within the scientific community and a consensus is reached. "
It may be fair to say that large portions of the community do not believe a consensus has in fact been reached. Is this in fact the case? Is it a failure in presentation? Perhaps there is in fact a failure to present time, scale and context? Has a full enough time scale been incorporated into the mainstream presentation? From my observations not.
If this is the case, perhaps these failures, combined with the failure to grasp the impact of ready access to data online, are key contributors to the public rejection of much climate change science. In an age of information access, transparency is critical to keep the trust on ones listener.
oops, sorry, there's a few typos in there, but let me just correct "on" to "of" in the last sentence from above:
…In an age of information access, transparency is critical to keep the trust of ones listener.
What a great pleasure it is to read the comments of one who has a really deep understanding of the scientific process. Thank you, Mailen.
At last, someone who clearly articulates reality to shine brightly through the haze of confusion on scientific matters! I particularly appreciated the observation about all our observations being snapshots bounded in time. What we see today gives us ideas about how something works, but contrast that with our perceptions from a few years ago and how incomplete data can lead us astray. For example, in 1980 Time Magazine ran a cover story about the coming ice age that could put much of North America as far south as Chicago under a sheet of ice in only a century. Today they are quick to report about the shrinking of the Arctic ice pack as evidence of global warming (while ignoring the record growth of the Antarctic ice pack) and the decline of the polar bear population (which actually is growing).
i agrre with the most import frase "This process includes replication of experiments". If the observations can not be replicated over and over is just an opinion
David,
"just an opinion" AND reason to be very suspicious, in particular when it could cost you money.
David, I have to say add that experiments are not the only source of knowledge in science. The first step in the scientific method, as you certainly know, is description. This often comes before any hypothesis is devised, and is a basis for generating testible hypotheses. I think science is vulnerable to criticism for sometimes jumping far into the generation of hypotheses and even theory before the most fundamental observations have been done.
Along with initial observations, obtaining specimens of what has been observed is important when possible. That enables testing and retesting, essentially, replicative processes, using new methods and technologies as they become available. Museums are full of specimens (physical realities) that can be tested and re-examined. Such evidence is not "just an opinion." One may, of course, have opinions about those specimens that change on the basis of additional specimens and measurements.
Sometimes we have evidence that is not experimental. When that is the case, we have to do the best we can. Further, most experiments are not PERFECT in even doing what they are intended to do.
Joe as you know in science the words "true", "perfect" , "absolute" are absent and when somebody mention one of them sound awkward, also you may know the following but for the benefit of audience i will sumary the levels of evidence. It does not mean that lowest don't have some value, but their value "devaluates" or disappear by the existance of the highest
from de lowest to the highest
expert opinion, retrospective studies, observational studies, prospective randomized control studies (RCT). and the crown: the meta analysis of the RCT.
David, thank you for providing the list that acknowledges various kinds of evidence. Those are good points. At the same time, I should add that these categories are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive of the many kinds of scientific studies that are done and have (varying degrees of) credibility. Things are usually more complicated than our efforts to be able to communicate–and methods and traditions and rigor vary from one scientific discipline to another. More on that later. I just wanted to thank you, David, for communicating about the methods of science. Such things are not really obvious to people who read about science rather than actually being involved in it. Warm wishes.
"a careful and dedicated community."
Based on evidence, 'the public' no longer believes that scientists are a breed apart, made up of only careful and dedicated people. It is not science that people doubt. It is scientists.
Ed, a trick to avoid the posting issue is to click the "add comment" once. If there is a delay, click the "edit" button. If it takes you back to edit, the post has not been submitted. If it does not take you back, sit and wait…it will show up eventuaaaally!
btw.. for those who are interested in the question of what "scientific consensus" means, and the difficulties associated with it, follow the link in the quote below.
To throw a cat among pidgeons…this quote is from a discussion about the paper and research in the link:
"Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-among-scientists-crumbles-global-warming-alarmists-attack-their-integrity/
sorry, link in quote failed to copy in. Here it is: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
Hi Timo, I think if I do that I lose what I've written?
The scoundrel, Al Gore, after losing out politically, parlayed his public image into amost $1 billion $$, by promoting the global warming theme. Later prominent scientists, mostly in Europe, where supposedly a concensus painted scary scenarios, which added greater fear to a large number of people globally. Then the concensus fell apart when the backup papers failed to be delivered.
i don't believe the current warming trend in some parts, ie: the Artic, Greenland etc is caused by man. i live in Calif. mid state, i've noticed no change here in the past 20 years. We've had El Nino evident in the Pacific a couple of times, but it gives way to the Nina opposite, ebb & flow, with no consistentcy.
We know high wind currents continually move north to south from pole to pole, and permits the equatorial parts from burning up, as it drops the cooler air downward. As stated above the Antarctic is at record depth of ice. And the big hole in the sky, opens big, and then closes again, the carbon dioxide of man, is extremely small compared with the world's volcanos constantly spewing debris, ash, & other particles up to the ionosphere. Earth's ability to absorb all of that contaminant waste, and still fight back, is billions of years record. What Earth has to contend with is the smog in many cities, also earthquakes, tsunamis, and perhaps massive meteors. That is in addition to maniacs with hydrogen bombs. No weaponry ever produced has never been used. i would hate to have funded the scientific community which has specialized in seeking the absolute truth of origins. Follow the money in every
speculation. WATCH OUT, THE SKY IS FALLING. WOLF WOLF.
The damage to the ozone layer, space junk, deforestation, nuclear waste and major pollution coming mostly from first world countries are undeniably a result of man's irresponsibility and can hardly be attributed to nature. Scientists, Politicians and Corporates have a hand in this too.
Damage to the ozone layer? NASA used to give us frequent updates about the hole in the ozone layer over anarctica. But you haven't heard about it for more than a decade because it disappeared! NASA had to admit that it was part of a cyclic wind pattern and never influenced by the release of so-called "ozone-depleting" chemicals such as freon. In other words, NASA has disproved their earlier "evidence."
Claims about deforestation being a huge negative are also being shown as having about the same credibility as someone telling you the sun rises in the west.
Nuclear waste as an issue destroying the earth? You've really been drinking the environmentalist tea! I can't blame you for not knowing about the UN Nuclear Survey Report about the results of the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster in Japan because the news media refused to repor it. Do you know how many acres of land they found were contaminated with nuclear materials to a level that could cause damage to humans or animals? Less than 20 acres–and current decontamination procedures could remove the hazard in under six months.
Pollution? That's a real problem in many of the recently industrialized nations where pollutants have been dumped with abandon. Recently there were news reports about the air pollution level in one Chinese city being so bad that it was rated at over 700 on a scale that goes only to 500. But in the US and Europe the efforts to halt and clean-up pollution have been so successful that the regulators have to keep making new claims about things that weren't considered pollutants being a danger to humans and pushing the margins for measurement into levels so small that the measurements become questionable. (I have dealt with the regulators in California, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Delaware so I know this from firsthand experience.) What the regulators in the US are discovering is that it is impossible to control the even minute amounts of pollutants because they are either coming in on the winds from other countries or that they occur naturally. Then there's CO2. Increased CO2 levels means plants grow faster. They are why the production of crops in the US has gone up approximately 25% per acre over the last 30 years. That means we all have more food to eat.
The biggest environmental problem we have is all the manure being spread by pseudo-scientists and politicians.
Nasa still tracks the ozone hole. http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ By stopping the use of CFCs, the ozone loss has mostly stabilized. Because of this it, doesn't make it on the nightly news.
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in a Dark Place.
"Science arouses a soaring sense of wonder. But so does pseudo- science. Sparse and poor popularizations of science abandon ecological niches that pseudoscience promptly fills. If it were widely understood that claims to knowledge require adequate evidence before they can be accepted, there would be no room for pseudoscience. But a kind of Gresham's Law prevails in popular culture by which bad science drives out good.
All over the world there are enormous numbers of smart, even gifted, people who harbour a passion for science. But that passion is unrequited. Surveys suggest that some 95 per cent of Americans are 'scientifically illiterate'. That's just the same fraction as those African Americans, almost all of them slaves, who were illiterate just before the Civil War – when severe penalties were in force for anyone who taught a slave to read." Bold added.
Is the public scientifically illiterate? Then a lot of that responsibility falls on scientists. Sagan himself was counting on it when he popularized the "Nuclear Winter" nonsense which was promoted by short-circuiting the scientific review process, and was eventually disproven after the first Iraq war.
And then there's the whole "ozone layer" silliness that you cited. Exactly how long have we known an ozone layer existed? About 100 years. The detailed data for considerably less. And we're supposed to make policy based on such a short timeline?
Scientists are disbelieved for the same reason most dismiss Harold Camping.
On cable, one can still find reruns of early 1980's programs warning of "global cooling," and a new coming ice age, by the same 'scientists' who insist we believe in anthropogenic global warming.
But it's the poor, ignorant proles who are to blame. We have learned that the men and women behind the scientific curtain are not necessarily bad people, but they are bad prophets.
A lot of prophets have been bad prophets. Even so, a very important part of science is accurate prediction. Much of scientific method is designed to enable accurate prediction. It turns out not to be very easy. In fact, it isn't easy for anyone. For some people the kind of predictions that are provided by astrologers and fortune cookies is enough. Others require more precision. Actually, it seems to me that climatology is much more accurate than it used to be.
To be fair, some climatologists believe there is a rather strong relationship between global warming and global cooling. Dr. Harm deBlij, my former colleague when I was employed at the National Geographic Society, often said, "The trouble with global warming is global cooling." I'll explain that if anyone is interested….
Actually, I suspect that "the men and women behind the scientific curtain" are about the most accurate prophets the world has ever seen.
There is such a thing as science education. Not everyone makes good use of it.
Ed, when did I mention the ozone?
Clarification of two points made above: We are highly priveledged people because of the scientific community providing discoveries that have been of great benefit to the physical health, creature comforts, and technical expertize. Its the scientists involved in the lifetime research of origins, that i wouldn't want to foot the bill.
Re: Weapons of human annihilation, all ever designed, have always been utilized.
Why is it that we are so grateful for the work of scientists who have greatly improved lives and health and in many other ways, giving their efforts praise; yet if their study and discoveries disagree with our preconceived ideas they are rejected out of hand because they are unfavorable to what we believe, not know.
For those who claim that there is not any evidence for evolution, I recommend the following sites:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/explorers/projects/
humanorigins.si.edu
http://www.becominghuman.org
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins
http://www.leipzig-school.eva.mpg.de
I have no trouble believing there are climate changes in certain geographical areas. I tend to believe, as some scientists claim, that much of what we experience in that realm is cyclical. I can't prove it and likely neither can a *scientist* prove otherwise.
Maranatha
At the risk of being labelled totally post-modern (can't we all get along), I wonder why it is so important for scientists to convince everyone the "truth" of origins. If it doesn't add to a better life for humanity, why try to make everyone think alike? I recognize this is important philosophically for aetheists as perhaps a religion might be. But what possibly can come from it by disparaging all those who for any reason reject the scientific view?
I personally would not want to denigrate any scientist or person who believes in macroevolution. But I believe "political correctness" needs to be extended to creationists too. I think Christians should stop judging as well. I do see a danger that society will become more and more exclusive of those who go against the grain. I am thinking of a Christian doctor asked to speak at a university graduation rejected because of his belief in creation. That portends of an elitist caste of academicians, scholars, scientists, teachers, etc. who could even threaten religious liberty, or, at least, keep some "in their place" and out of the sciences.
With uncertainty scientific consensus is of necessity a current state of intepretation of nature. However when science is communicated the uncertainty part is mostly left out. Hence much conflict resulted. Another issue is terminalogy. If acceptance of microevoution makes one an evolutionist then the community of scientific consenus certainly is large but if it includes macroevolution than even scientific community itself has difficulty with a consensus.
Scientific consesus could be suspect as over a hundred scientists signed consensus statements against Einstein's theory of Relatvity of which Einstein stated one should be enough if his theory was wrong.
Truth, Ella, and Philip, I think you all make good points. Truth, when one speaks of climate change, it seems to me that one should keep in mind the vast array of localized and even microclimates. Likely, changes in some places are in one direction on relevant measures and in the other direction in other places. So variation in warming or cooling means different things in different places. And it's true, of course, that there are draughts and large fires in some places while there are more intense floods in other places. We now have more data and more ability to measure climate factors than ever before. Being able to identify a consistent trend in which the average of temperatures all over the world increases or decreases should, I think, at least motivate us to ask whether such trends are being influenced by human activities, and, if so, what can we do about it. Arguing about this from personal experience or some system of belief only pits us unnecessarily against one another. It is in everyones' best interests to be constructive and base action on accurate information.
Ella, I think most or much of the scientific effort regarding origins is driven by a desire to really understand the natural history of the world and the development and patterns of life of earth–not at all to try to convince everyone to believe alike. Some scientists, journalists, and educators, have certainly taken it as their mission to inform the public about the findings of scientific exploration and advances, and some of those people seem bent on pushing people to believe that the evidence uncovered by scientists means more than it is really known to mean. That is, explanations and conclusions based on evidence may be accepted and defended as certain when they are just very likely or fairly probable. People are pretty used to being told what to believe and what someone thinks is absolutely true. When large numbers of people believe things to be absolutely true that are profoundly contrary to the evidence that has been uncovered, it is not too surprising that there should be efforts to show the public what the evidence is and what it is thought to mean.
A good example, of course, is museum exhibits that show tens of thousands of tools, bones, fossils, and artifacts extending back from the present to ages estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of years.
Philip, I think most scientists are trained to recognize lack of certainty, and to try to structure acquisition of evidence in ways that do not add unnecessarily to variation and uncertainty. That is, we try to get results that are as clean as possible, while still revealing reality. We are taught to analyze data within probabilistic frameworks. So, if you measured the blood pressure of 30 middle-aged men, how likely would you be to get the result you found just by chance rather than the findings accurately indicating the blood pressure typical of the population from which the sample of 30 was drawn? If you had only sampled 10 men, you would have been less likely to get an accurate estimate for the population than if you had sampled 30 or 300. That level of scientific analysis is often not mentioned or emphasized when journalists describe the results of a study. The journalist often does include an interview of a scientist who is skeptical of the conclusions reached by the authors of a study. The authors may well have reached conclusions that are not fully supported by the data/evidence. There are some incentives for considering one's own work to be exceptionally important. Ther are scientific rivalries. Scientists are just people. Many of them are quite smart, but that varies, as does integrity and skill and motivation.
I think we all do well to be skeptical of conclusions reached in any way, including those based on scientific evidence. But this also means that we need to equip ourselves with tools for careful and critical consideration of evidence. Given the extent to which we are, as consumers, bombarded with information designed to influence our decisions to buy or to vote or to act in certain ways, we all need to improve our abilities to evaluate information.
Joe,
“A good example, of course, is museum exhibits that show tens of thousands of tools, bones, fossils, and artifacts extending back from the present to ages estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of years.”
Indeed this is a good example for the lack of precision of age estimation being stated as a matter-of-factly. When reporting average blood pressures of a sample of people it usually is accompanied by a variance or standard deviation. When posting age of artifacts (manmade I suppose) no variance is usually given. If variances of such age estimations were reported it could render such estimations meaningless. This is one area scientific discipline is often ignored and statements are made with little credibility.
Philip's point that ancient age estimates are not very precise is more in Erv's area of expertise than mine, but he is correct that part of the assessment of data involves looking not only at measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode), but also of dispersal (standard error, standard deviation, range). The statistical measures are especially useful in making probabalistic inferences about populations from sample data.
It is common in museums to label bones, tools, fossils with an estimated age or age range. I would not claim that this is universal, but this usually takes the form of "ca. 40,000 YBP" or "200K-160K BP" or something of the sort. [ca. = circa = about; YBP or BP = years before present]. Use of "Range" is most often used, I think, when the are a number of specimens that are reasonably similar from sites that have been estimated at a range of differing dates. When there is only a single specimen of something, there is less likely to be an estimated range, although some curators might choose to specify an estimated range.
Data of different kinds and from different sources certainly do require different methods of analysis, and methods for data in ratio scale can more effectively make use of variance measures than can ordinal or nominal scale data. One must carefully and critically examine specimens and information and hold imprecise information gently and tentatively. But we need not discard every indicator of reality that is not perfectly precise.
Joe,
Dispersal of measurements has direct bearing on precision of measurements but it does not guarantee accuracy of measurements. One can miss the bull’s eye consistently with great precision yet it misses the mark. YBP is only using the present [time of visitors’ calendar?] as a reference point. Again it does not say anything about accuracy or even precision.
One can use different methods of triangulation to determine the elevation of the top of a flag pole on a mound to great precision with very small standard error of measurement yet to call it the length of the flag pole is an entirely different story.
When referencing statistics one should be aware of what the measurements are and what are the assumptions underlying the measurements. As part of my signature for my e-communications at work I include a statement, “It is bad to lie with statistics; it is worst to lie despite statistics.”
Thanks for the comment, Philip. I think I agree with most of what you just said, but I don't know for certain because I do not really understand what you said or how it relates to what I said. It's okay. I don't have to understand. In any case, I wish you well.
Joe,
It is all there. I tried to be precise and to the point. I do appreciate your honesty of not understanding.
Let's try again. I thought you were suggesting that the dates given for various specimens, such as fossils, bones, etc., were erroneous in the sense that something is displayed in a museum with a label indicating that it is 80,000 years old, and that the lack of an indicator of dispersal (e.g., standard error, or something) indicates a lack of precision.
I was just pointing out that most dates on museum labels indicate that the dates given are estimates. When we read "Ca. 80,000 years" we understand that "ca. = circa = approximately" and that the age given is approximate. Again, I should defer to Erv, whose specialty is estimating dates and ages of specimens.
To address your point, I do think it would be useful, whenever possible to also include some indicator of dispersal. When we do population estimates of wild populations of animals, we provide our best guess of the total population (e.g., about 60,000, plus or minus 15,000, or whatever the standard error is). We generally do this, just to give an estimate of the likely minimum and maximum population size. But it is not entirely satisfying to me, because I recognize that it is just a mathematical derivation. I do like more precision and like to get as much "ground truth" (actual observations) as possible.
So, of course, I prefer that museum specimens be labeled and displayed with as much information as is practical–without expecting levels of precision beyond what reliable dating methods can provide. And, now, this discussion should be turned over to Erv, who has the appropriate expertise to discuss the issues more intelligently than I can.
Philip, thanks again for being interested in this topic.
Joe,
Confidence bound is a probabilistic statement of precision. The higher the confidence level the broader the bounds. It is not to estimate the minimum or maximum of a population parameter. Short of a census an estimate (statistics) is what one can expect to get. It sounds funny if one gives an estimation of an animal population of ca. 80,000. It is freqently used in reference to time meaning it lacks precision.
The concepts of benefit and harm are often no longer measured in physical terms so much as political.
Mailen –
Good article.
The nature of "Truth" has been debated by philosophers for longer than there were thinkers that called themselves "Philosophers" and Philosophers of Science have had at least as much trouble with the concept of truth as philosophers of other, but scientists have never been truly involved with "truth". Scientist try to establish models (or theories) that:
and some might add
but not all scientists care about the latter.
Whether this corresponds to philosophical “truth” is less concern to most. Because of #3, it certainly has impermanence; at any time it may be falsified and need to be replaced. To some that may make it not “truth”, but perhaps this is the closest to “truth” that is possible. Perhaps for phenomena in the natural world it should be our definition of “truth”.
But more importantly for your topic, scientifically established models (or theories) have value to society because they can “predict future events” and have not (yet) been ”falsified”. If lack of falsification is due to lack to trying or lack of time it may weaken its value to society for driving action, but if it has stood test in spite of scientific challenges, society should not ignore it.
Terry L Anderson
Rewrite of Joe Erwin's above post of two days ago 🙂
Study is not the only source of knowledge in religion. The first step in the theological method should be description of the preferred result. This often comes before any doctrine is devised, and is a basis for generating testable doctrines. Religion is vulnerable to criticism for jumping far into the generation of many doctrines before the most fundamental observations of the results of a major doctrine has been done.
Along with initial observations, obtaining specimens of those that are being observed is important. That enables testing and retesting them using new methods and technologies as they become available. Churches are full of specimens that can be tested and re-examined. Such evidence is not just an opinion. One may have opinions about those specimens that change on the basis of circumstances.
Sometimes we have evidence that is experimental. When that is the case, we have to do the best we can. Most experiments are not perfect even when they behave as they are intended to do—we never know what’s inside.
Ella,
Your comments make no sense to me: in theology, the preferred results should be determined?
Is this something Joe wrote–where is his original comment you are "rewriting?"
I believe to assert that the public rejects science is a little too simplistic. I think some of the public reject scientific interpretations that come with priori commitments to certain ideologies and riddled with enough bias to sy anything and everything.
Are the opinions of the majority of scientists binding? Do I as a member of the public have an intellectual obligation to surrender my views to the majoriy of scientists, or the scientific consesus?
Tapiwa, I was just about to post a comment quite similar to yours. The assertion that "the public" rejects science is, I agree, oversimplified to the point of not really being true. And that's a good thing.
My angle is a little different, in that I'm thinking that the public, in general, does not reject science. Some people do reject pretty much anything having to do with science, but not many. Some people uncritically accept science as if it provided absolute authority–too many, in my opinion. Some people are indifferent to science. Some are skeptical of it. Some subject information from scientific sources to careful scrutiny. That is the view I prefer.
The opinions of scientists are no more "binding" than those of anyone else. None of us should be surrendering our views to anyone. Knowing what people who are well-informed on an issue report that they believe can be informative, but that knowledge need not be used as an absolute authority with which we must all comply. On the other hand, policy decisions do need to be based on careful consideration of well-informed opinion, whether that of scientists or not.