The Irony: Science Research/Education Leaders Do Not Use Science-Based Thinking

"We speak with cosmologist and science communicator Dr. Paul Sutter about his upcoming book, Rescuing Science. Dr. Sutter thinks (Capital S) Science has made some significant errors, and that people do not trust science because of the very system it has created for itself. Where has the discipline gone wrong, why is academia such a mess, and how do we fix it?"

Click on the link below to understand how science has been hijacked by the science establishment regarding educating researchers and educators:

Rescuing Science

- - - - - - - -

Then, there is also general fraud in science.

A Pep Talk To Keep Plugging Away Promoting Reality

The Pilgrims Were Religious Fanatics: Does This Change Your Mind?

" - - - you want to change the world (but) do you really believe that people can change their minds not just on a topic but overall? I mean I kind of have to, I don't have a choice if I believe the world can change I have to believe that individuals can because one thing doesn't happen without the other. It doesn't work any other way. If you do not believe that people can change then you might as well just give up striving for a better world. You have to believe that it's possible. It's not going to be an event for most people. They're not just going to suddenly change their mind. They'll be swayed over time. Their ideas will shift slowly but surely and that's what causes the change. Sometimes it's imperceptible but if you want that better world you have to believe that individuals can change. If not. just give it up because there's no way it happens any other way. In that bus analogy, some people are only going to go five or six miles. Some are going 6,000 but as long as you can get people headed in the same direction, it's a win. And, his referring to the pilgrims as religious fanatics? That's probably a pretty good example of that because odds are he got that line from Ansel Adams, but when he saw it, he understood it. The reason he found it funny, the reason he decided it was something that he could quote, might have been your conversation the year before. It's gradual but make no mistake about it. If you want the world to change, you have to be willing to accept the idea that individuals can. And, it's probably not a great idea to write them off and just be like, well they're never going to change. And sure, that's true about some people. Some people won't change, but you don't know who they are. So, just because somebody is wearing a red hat doesn't necessarily mean that they have forsaken all reason. I mean, I know that may be hard to believe at times. But, if you want that world, you have to believe that people can change, that individuals can change. And, you have to be willing to try to help them along. It may not work and the best you ever get may be them recycling a line from a show they saw on TV. But, it shows a shift and you must keep working at it anyway. It's just a thought. Have a good day."

(Mildly edited for grammar from the transcript of this episode of the"Beau of the Fifth Column" YouTube Channel on 11/21/2023)

"I Did My Own Research"

This is what one can hear or read from the anti-science folks. However, if one is a science-based thinker, one does need the proper methods and tools to find out what is the scientific consensus on any topic. Click on the link below for a video by Sabine Hossenfelder outlining a step-by-step process for the non-scientist/researcher:

Do your own research, but do it right

For starters: 

• Be knowledgeable about the elements of scientific research
• Don't cherry-pick
• Never trust 2nd-hand sources - - - but look at them anyway
• If there is data, look at it and don't trust the text

"?CLAIMS" (Question Claims)

*The following is my car license plate: 

* This sticker below is above the license plate on the back window to clarify the meaning of the license plate:

Someone close to me saw it and was confused. She thought that it was referring to insurance claims. 

To clarify: there are many definitions of the word, for example (from Dictionary.com):

Numbers 1 and 5 above encapsulate the sense of "claims" that I am using: stating to be true, factual, or existing.

THIS is the essence of science-based thinking. One should question all claims regarding any important issue and research what the consensus of pertinent experts states about it.

Parental Control

To conservative ideologues, parental rights/control is the top authority regarding the welfare of children. Is that valid? Is that the best for the individual child and for society? Does a parent with an elementary school level of education have the authority to overrule experts in the spectrum of knowledge disciplines? Click on the link below for a short video by Beau of the Fifth Column for answers to these and other questions regarding this matter:

Let's talk about parents and education

The Dangers Of Lack Of Scientific Knowledge

The human brain is finite and subject to many biases. If one rejects or hasn't been exposed to science and science-based thinking, one is open to negative thoughts and actions. Following are two recent articles that are examples of this relationship:

"Public attitudes that are in opposition to scientific consensus can be disastrous and include rejection of vaccines and opposition to climate change mitigation policies. Five studies examine the interrelationships between opposition to expert consensus on controversial scientific issues, how much people actually know about these issues, and how much they think they know. Across seven critical issues that enjoy substantial scientific consensus, as well as attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and mitigation measures like mask-wearing and social distancing, results indicate that those with the highest levels of opposition have the lowest levels of objective knowledge but the highest levels of subjective knowledge. Implications for scientists, policymakers, and science communicators are discussed."  (link)

"In many of these cases, it is specifically scientific knowledge that is being questioned by conspiracy theorists. While scientists question scientific knowledge all the time, their standards for proof are obviously much higher. When internet celebrities hear that their pet theory has been considered and dismissed by the prevailing researchers, the conspiracist celebrity has to position their beliefs as being under attack by the establishment. This ends up providing the celebrity and their followers with cohesion and an enemy to rally around. It also gives them a sense of purpose, meaning, and identity. " (link)

This Would Not Happen If All Were Science-Based Thinkers

"Since the mid-2010s, the rise of the populist left and the populist right has shaken up the American political spectrum. Both movements have maneuvered to pressure and persuade the political establishment to adopt their objectives. But in recent years something unusual has been happening. We’re seeing the formation of a pipeline that circumvents the center altogether — and directly connects left-wing to right-wing populism.

"A group of journalists and media personalities who once were at home on the far left has formed a niche but influential political subculture that encourages leftists to abandon leftism for the populist right. Its most recognizable faces are former icons of leftist discourse who have millions of diehard fans: Glenn Greenwald, a co-founder of The Intercept, known as one of the most powerful critics of the “war on terror” in the Bush era. Matt Taibbi, a former Rolling Stone writer, who was famous for excoriating defenders of neoliberalism and likening Goldman Sachs to a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.” Tulsi Gabbard, formerly a Democratic House member and 2020 presidential candidate, was aligned with the Bernie Sanders wing of the party.


"But in recent years their focus has changed. These commentators had never hesitated to criticize Democrats alongside Republicans. But now they've pivoted to targeting liberals nearly exclusively, while forming ties with the authoritarian right."

Click on the link below for the full story. This would not be happening on the liberal side if all where science-based thinkers:

How the populist left has become vulnerable to the populist right

Conspiracy Theories: The Fear Factor

"This past year, COVID-19 and the U.S. elections have provided fertile ground for conspiracy theories—with sometimes disastrous consequences. Karen Douglas, PhD, of the University of Kent in the United Kingdom, discusses psychological research on how conspiracy theories start, why they persist, who is most likely to believe them and whether there is any way to combat them effectively."

Click on the link below for a podcast presenting an in-depth psychological analysis of conspiracy theories:

Why people believe in conspiracy theories

Are You Self-Aware Of HOW You Understand Reality?

Self-Awareness: how an individual consciously knows and understands their own character, feelings, motives, and desires. (Wikipedia)

One of the most difficult actions humans can take is to look at ourselves from the outside as others may see us without giving in to some of the cognitive biases that all of us tend to have. Some categories of opinions on reality that one can include in self-awareness are politics, economics, history, religion, and medicine.

In these, and other areas, are you forming your opinions to conform to "what you are taught?", or, do you question the claims of relatives, friends, religious organizations, political parties, and the media to which you are exposed? Is comfort or knowing the truth more important? 

What tools do you use to decide what is true: 

• personal feelings/intuition/revelations
• objective evidence

Only one of these two can be justified/verified in understanding reality: the latter (the findings of science). If you think that the former is knowledge in the same sense as science, this link will educate you.

Will This Be The Autopsy Of The USA?

Click on the link below for a frightening expose of the serious sickness that probably will condemn the USA to death in the near future. Frankly, I don't see enough people in the country who are science-based thinkers to change its demise. I wish I was wrong, but I do fear for my children, grandchildren, and all of humanity:

Will America's disregard for science be the end of its reign?

What Has The USA Lost And How?

Throughout its history, the USA has been more of an idea of what humanity could be rather than what the USA actually is. It has been a "City on the Hill" since its land was first colonized. However, because of religious factionalism inherent within the colonies, the US Constitution wisely established not only the recognition of basic human rights but also included the separation of religion and government.

Since that time, there has been a slow, gradual and painful advancement towards achieving its ideals. Until recently, the ideals of the USA were held by the vast majority of the public as almost quasi-religious. Yes, there have always been ideological outliers. However, they were effectively marginalized or attenuated by the wisdom of the voters. 

I have spent a significant time in Washington, DC in my 76+ years on this planet. I enjoyed touring the Smithsonian buildings, the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Monuments without having to go through any significant security gauntlets. I could feel their special purposes historically, politically, and practically. I felt that truly I was living in freedom being a resident of the USA. In a secular way, I felt that I was on sacred grounds. With today's security measures in the area, it feels that the USA is under siege. IT IS!!

The religious dogmatists, conspiracy theorists, supporters of alternatives to medicine, and all other anti-science purveyors are winning. How? *The Republican Party has allowed itself to be hijacked by this magical thinking evil. Unless our society adopts science-based thinking, and soon, will the last person leaving turn the light out?

* Of course, I'm not even addressing their discredited economics here. If you support their economics, just peruse this blog to see what I am talking about there.

Transgenderism: A Target For The Political Right

In recent months, political conservatives have increased their attack against acceptance of the science supporting sex/gender as a spectrum, and are focusing on transgenderism. Two examples are these recent books:

• The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society

• Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters

Following are links debunking these two books:

• SIO284: Debunking "The End of Gender" Part 1

• SIO285: Debunking "The End of Gender" Part 2

• A Review of "Irreversible Damage" by Abigail Shrier

- - - - - - -

This podcast also adds to the understanding of the issue.

Admitting You Are Wrong Is Healthy

"Rethinking your opinions—and changing your views when your facts are proved wrong or someone makes a better argument—can make your life better. It can make you more successful, less anxious, and happier."

Click on the link below for an article that gives reasons and methods to overcome normal human resistance to admitting you are wrong.

How to Get Better at Admitting You Are Wrong

Scientist vs. Science: A Reminder

"Professor Avi Loeb has had a pioneering career in astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology. He's authored hundreds of academic papers on topics like black holes and the early days of the universe, collaborated on projects with the legendary Stephen Hawking and helmed Harvard's astronomy department for almost a decade, longer than anyone in the department's history.

 
"But despite an impressive resume that runs deep inside some of the world's most revered institutions, Loeb has found himself at odds with the mainstream of science in recent years over his most controversial hypothesis. He's become increasingly convinced a space object many other astronomers assume is just a peculiar space rock is really a piece of alien technology sent in our direction by some sort of extraterrestrial civilization."

This is a classical example of accepting an unsupported hypothesis, and it's a shame that such a noted scientist, who SPECIALIZES in this area of science, has firm views outside of supporting evidence. It is no different than the more common "Black Knight" conspiracy theory, or a religious scientist.

Click on the link below:

Harvard's Avi Loeb more sure than ever we were visited by alien spacecraft

How The Science-Based Thinker Handles The Unknown (in song)

The following YouTube video is an encapsulation of human angst and questioning, and how a science-based thinker handles it:

Let The Mystery Be - Iris DeMent

Lyrics:

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go
When the whole thing's done
But no one knows for certain
And so it's all the same to me
I think I'll just let the mystery be

(more)

Memo To Democrats

The USA politically remains essentially equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. With the Republicans controlling the US Senate and state legislations, how are the Democrats going to get their message into action? If there ever was a period in US history for practical politics trumping unwavering ideology, this is it IMO. Yes, one-third of voters will probably never change from voting Republican. However, think of the Democratic advantage if they can change the minds of only 25% of the remaining Republicans.

I offer some thoughts:

Religion is the largest source of magical thinking. The Democrats, while more science-based in their thinking than the Republicans, are still majority religious. Thus, perhaps cleaning their own house first would be wise.

The way Democrats attempt to get their platform across to Republicans and Independents is important. For example, the way many Democrats have talked about reforming the police ("Defund the police!") and reducing social and economic inequality ("Socialism") has left the Republicans an open door to misrepresent their true and valid proposals.

In summary, I recommend communicating with those who voted for Trump by focusing on respectfully getting them to reflect on the tools they use to understand reality and can they verify/justify them. Asking questions rather than directly criticizing their vote seems the more practical and science-based way to change their minds.

Street Epistemology: It Works

Street Epistemology is a conversational tool that helps people reflect on the quality of their reasons and the reliability of their methods used to derive one's confidence level in their deeply-held beliefs. It is used by science-based-thinkers to promote, one-on-one, critical thinking and to encourage people to analyze the level of magical thinking they use. Needless to say, magical thinkers, especially theists, are defensive against the process. However, as the video below demonstrates, it can be very effective. It's important to watch the whole video to get its full impact.

Surmounting Faith

Legal Precedent And Bodily Autonomy

I have posted several times on the issue of abortion. And, I have said that bodily autonomy is the best argument for a women's right to choose to end a pregnancy (link). Why? The legal precedence for such is very strong (link). Why then is there such opposition to accepting this precedent? Consider: 

• The vast majority of opponents to abortion are religious (link).
• Religion is the greatest force for magical thinking on the planet (link).
• Magical thinking is opposed to objective evidence as determined by science-based thinking (link).

This Explains It

Promoters of science-based thinking struggle with the fact that it is very difficult to change someone's mind with facts. The article below clearly explains why.

Click on link below:

Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

How To Get Magical Thinkers To Stop And Think?

Changing one's mind is one of the most difficult things for humans to do. We all have confirmation biases, which "is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making." Thus, it's important to reflect on this basic human tendency toward magical thinking and to combat it with science-based thinking (link)(link). However, easier said than done. Instead of spending a great deal of time directly attempting to educate folks who will be resistant to change, perhaps ending the conversation with something like this is warranted.*This may at least get your interlocutor to stop and think about what you are trying to communicate to him or her:

• "I want to know as much truth as possible. Thus, please tell me anything about what I am saying you think is false. However, keep in mind that "knowledge" is commonly held as "JUSTIFIED, true belief", thus, please justify it with objective evidence. Peace."

* Unfortunately, this will probably end the conversation.