Thinking about thinking

This is the first of a planned two posts that I've been mulling over and sporadically writing notes to myself about over the last year or so. This first post is a very brief overview of some important concepts and well established results of psychology that help me think about my thinking. The second post is about valuing scientific expertise and why our non-expert default position should be to believe scientific consensuses, or at the very least, to be comfortable in saying, "I don't know". Both include a lot of links to further reading and learning if you're so inclined.  

Why?

Since the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the White House, and now with the coronavirus pandemic, I've noticed a lot of weird beliefs and thinking take hold across social media. Common to these groups is the idea that "the media" and other non-specific all-powerful groups or people (the "deep state", Bill Gates) are manipulating us with their "fake news", false narratives and sinister motives; that scientists and so-called "experts" can't be trusted. Unlike me, this new group of free and critical thinking peoples see the truth; the scales have fallen from their eyes (not that they are being manipulated by an authoritarian dictator and a disinformation campaign). I, on the other hand, as someone who tends to take experts and journalists who have a proven track record at face value, am one of the “sheeple”.

Arguing with people who have fallen down the YouTube and Facebook rabbit hole about their specific beliefs and claims is exhausting and likely to backfire. As such, I thought I'd take a different tack and discuss how I think about critical thinking vs non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking, and the importance of valuing expertise. 

If I have sent you a link to this post, it's because I know I won't convince you about whatever it is we're disagreeing about. I'm not even going to try. Forget about whatever it was we were discussing as it’s not specific to what follows. What I hope to do is to show how I think about any claim, how I try to reflect on my own thinking (I'm not always successful), and in another post, why I think we should all value and respect expertise. 

Critical thinking vs non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking

First, I think it's important to distinguish between the three different modes of thinking that to some degree we all use to come to a point of view — critical thinking, non-critical thinking (see Kahneman's slow and fast thinking) and pseudo-critical thinking.

A scientist as Minister for Science?

The recent election win of the Liberal-National coalition means Australia will have a bunch of new Ministers. It was assumed that the Member for Indi, Sophie Mirabella was going to get this port lose her seat, so she has ruled herself out.
As such, the only scientist elected to the House of Representatives, Dr Dennis Jensen, has put his name forward. Ordinarily I’d be in favour of such a thing. (But then again, how often do any Ministers have expertise in their portfolios….)

Unfortunately, Jensen is a climate change denier. This is itself I do not have an a priori issue with. I do have an issue when the denier is a scientist who misunderstands some of the basic rules of logic and reason. From the Age article:

Dr Jensen has made headlines by questioning the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming.
Dr Jensen believes carbon dioxide is contributing somewhat to global temperatures, but not as much as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is suggesting.
Moreover, Dr Jensen does not think governments should be taking urgent action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. “In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all,” Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday.
“Scientific reality doesn’t give a damn who said it and it doesn’t give a damn how many say it.” It was wrong to accept the view of the 97 per cent of climate scientists who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely caused by human activities, because “the argument of consensus … is a flawed argument,” Dr Jensen said.

(Source: The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-sceptic-mp-dennis-jensen-wants-to-be-science-minister–20130912–2tltt.html#ixzz2eknuPxj9)

Dr Jensen misunderstands the Appeal to Authority and what a consensus view in science means. An appeal to authority can be fallacious on two grounds:

1. An appeal to a false authority. For example, if someone appealed to Dr Jensen’s authority as a scientist about his views on climate change, they would be making a false claim of authority. Dr Jensen is not a climate scientist.
2. An appeal to a real authority but one that is not backed up by evidence or argument. I.e. One, if questioned about a position, should be able to provide some evidence or argument that the authority themselves provide.

He is right in saying that “reality doesn’t give a damn….” He is wrong in saying the argument of consensus is flawed. A consensus among scientists is hard fought and should be respected. Over years the experts in a field have studied “X” and the significant majority come to understand that “Y” causes (or doesn’t cause) “X”. By what basis can anyone outside that field challenge this view? Only someone within the field has any legitimate ability to challenge the consensus, and then, not by dismissing the consensus arbitrarily, or claiming they are the “next Galileo”. They have to convince their colleagues by doing more science.

Dr Jensen’s espouses a view that is essentially no different to post-modern relativists, anti-vaccination cranks and advocates of intelligent design.
________________
Update: Who needs a science portfolio anyway... "For the first time since the creation of a science portfolio in 1931, Australia does not have a science minister."

Self-Defeating Argument

Other terms and/or Related Concepts

Self-refuting idea; Self-refuting sentence; Self-contradiction; Tautology; Begging the Question; Circular reasoning

Description

A Self-Defeating Argument is one that is internally inconsistent (self-contradictory) and as such, by definition is false (and therefore meaningless). The proponent has inadvertently set up a paradoxical circular argument; if the conclusion is accepted as true, the premises must be false (which therefore means the conclusion must actually be false, which then could mean the premises are true... ad infinitum).

A classic example is the liar paradox. Consider the following:

The following sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true.

If we accept the first sentence, then we must conclude the second sentence is false. However, in doing this, we invalidate the "truthfulness" of the first sentence, but if that’s the case...

Example

Dani Nigher is arguing with her friend Con Senses about climate change.

"Global warming just can't happen. Think about it. They say the overall temperature of the Earth's oceans will increase. What happens to the volume of water when it gets hotter? It increases! An increase in ocean levels will mean an increase in ocean volume and as such, ocean surface area. But, if the ocean surface area increases, we'll also get, as a consequence, more evaporation.

More evaporation means heat gets taken away from the surface, and more importantly, more cloud cover, which will stop sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth. More light will be reflected into space. That is, the increase in evaporation will actually cause cooling, and cancel out global warming from the greenhouse effect!"

Comment

Ignoring all other flaws on Dani's argument, we will just focus on her logic. If we believe the conclusion, that excessive evaporation will cancel out warming by greenhouse gases, then how did the ocean surface area increase? (A prediction of global warming is the melting of polar ice caps, and thermal expansion of the oceans, will cause a rise in ocean levels.) The conclusion contradicts the premise, so is invalid. By definition the premise must be accepted as true for the conclusion to be valid. But if the conclusion contradicts the premise, we have a Self-Defeating Argument.

Now, of course, giving Dani the benefit of the doubt, we could rephrase her idea and propose a reasonable, non-contradictory hypothesis. For example, the increase in ocean surface area could damp climate change causing a lag in warming. Or, the increase in surface area could be involved in a cycle, that means periodically the temperature goes up, then goes down, then goes up.... and so on. Whatever the case, it won't be a simple cancellation.

Without having consulted any literature on climate change, or bothering to talk to even a single climate scientist, one still feels fairly safe in presuming variables, such as the increase in surface area of oceans and consequent evaporation, is something that (among thousands of other variables) scientists do account for.

 

Remember the smart kids in high school...

You know, the ones who always topped the class in science and mathematics (yes, I am equating being good at science and mathematics with being smart... just saying).

Well, many of those kids went on to university to get science degrees. Some of those - the smartest smart kids - went on to get PhDs. They studied like crazy for many years in their area of interest, to become the experts in their field - be it medical research, paleontology, climate science, evolution, particle physics... the list goes on.

Overwhelmingly, the vast majority of these scientists, believe that modern medicine is the way to go, would state that evolution is a fact, and think human activity is changing the climate... the list goes on.

Sure, they might be wrong. Individuals within even this elite group might hold alternate positions. I cannot appeal to their collective authority as the only reason to believe what they say... but

...when you take an alternate position to the modern scientific consensus, the opposite position that over (say) 9 out of 10 experts (the smartest smart kids) and peak scientific bodies hold, and you're not the one other expert, please run this thought experiment.

Imagine you're back in high school. You've just finished a big science or mathematics exam. You're mingling around with other students and discussing the responses to the questions. You get into a conversation with the group of smart kids - the top students in your cohort. The answer they have to the hardest question is different to yours.

Do you:

a) become even more certain you're right, argue with them and tell them they're wrong and idiots

b) reflect on the likelihood of you being right, get a sinking feeling and decide to reconsider your answer?

Most would choose b) I'd guess.

Now, a second thought experiment to mull over for a while. Imagine you're about to post a comment on on a blog that goes against the overwhelming scientific consensus....

I'm not saying you should just believe what all science says, "just because". That we should accept expert wisdom carte blanche. But you need a damn good reason to choose a) over b) when you have a different answer to the smart kids.

_____________
Alternate post

Smart kids are smart
You're not
Smart kids also studied
You didn't
Smart kids got the answers right
You didn't
Smart kids became scientists
You didn't
Scientists studied for many years and over time produce overwhelming mutliple lines of evidence that support position X
You do nothing, but choose Y. (Or, you "study" a topic by googling to find the points to justify Y.)

I think I'll copy off the smart kids (this is a rhetorical statement and in no way should be taken as approval of cheating).

Global warming deniers, skeptics or contrarians?

I've noticed on some of the podcasts I listen to, blogs I read and twitter streams I follow the use of the word "denier" to refer to self identified anthropogenic global-warming / climate change "skeptics". (I've also noticed politicians using both interchangeably.)

 

However, I think attempting to re-label such people as "deniers" associates them with the vile deniers of the holocaust. It could just be me - but if I were to do a cloze activity like the following: 

"Well known ___________ denier will be giving a talk at..." 

I'd be more likely to insert "holocaust" than "global-warming". 

Google "denier" (by this I mean search for the term "denier" in google - like this - not someone who denies the existence of google), look through the first 100 or so links and you'll see they are to both climate change deniers and holocaust deniers (with the majority holocaust deniers). Any variant of the word "deny" searched within google's "wonder wheel" provides a link to a holocaust denial related search. Fairly impartial evidence of the association. (I haven't bothered to search using Bing, but what's the point...?)

 

Splitting hairs? Maybe? But holocaust denial is pretty offensive and often motivated by xenophobia, bigotry and hate. I can't say the same about those on the other side of the majority scientific view about global warming. The use of the word "denial" is a Weasel Word that Poisons the Well. Whether you use it for this effect deliberately or not doesn’t really matter. Associating a view you don't agree with, with the holocaust, is also a tactic used by creationists - something  I wouldn't like to be associated with. (An admittedly explicit association - see the Ben Stein "Expelled" clip as an example - and as such more fallacious. But at least they're relatively upfront about it.) 

Moreover, labelling someone a denier is a conversation ender and it seems to me to be pretty disingenuous to say otherwise. (In the case of some people this might be a good reason to use the word denier – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad springs to mind.) I would also suggest that to claim: "It never occurred to me that using 'denier' in this way is an attempted guilt by association," would also be quite disingenuous - but I can't read your mind (if you rubbed your eye in the last 5 minutes you are one of the people whose mind I control however).

I wholeheartedly agree with the attempt to disassociate "skeptic" from those who doubt the claims of the majority consensus on climate change / global warming. These “skeptics” tend to be - at least in my experience - politically motivated ideologues, not genuine “seekers after truth”. For whatever reason, they are “contrarians”. That is, they hold the “contrary” view. By holding the contrary view it is true that they "deny" anthropogenic global warming. But to "deny" the weaselly guilt by association caused by using the term denier is humbug.

I know I'm fighting a losing battle - wikipedia says so. But I also note that Clive James would probably agree with me... (Also (apart from this apology), sorry for all the asides and off topic tangents in parentheses.)

Podcast: Hunting Humbug 101 - Tutorial 13: Exaggerated Conflict (feat. Climate Change and hypocrisy)

In this podcast we discuss the flawed argument Exaggerated Conflict, specifically in the context of climate change. We take the p… out of celebrities and I interview (or rather, have a chat with) a mate - Ben, from the acknowledgements of the book. We also provide an obvious solution to climate change - burying paper!



Here's the link to direct download: (42 mins & 19 mb) and you subscribe here: http://huntinghumbug101.podbean.com/feed/or by clicking one of the buttons below.

• Can't remember where I got the news clip from youtube from... (UPDATE - found it - here.) The scientist being referred to is John Christy. From the wikipedia link, he is quoted as saying: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way." He's just no a fan of alarmist declarations, false certainty, politics and group think, from what I can tell.
• Environmentalist Al Gore (pictured above) at his computer. Check out his house and compare it to George Bush's - ah, schadenfreude. (Urbanlegends on it too.)

Private Jets for Climate Change

I'm not a climate change obsessive, but there is so much Humbug on both sides of this issue out there that we will naturally revisit the topic quite frequently. An inspired, ironic slogan coined by Matt Bellamy of the rock band Muse deserves extensive airing (click the bolded link at the bottom of this extract for the full story).

Live Earth will be a series of concerts, modelled on Live Aid and and Live 8, aimed at raising awareness about the threat from global warming.

As many as 12 concerts across seven continents featuring the likes of Madonna and Genesis and 100 other acts are planned over 24 hours, including one at a research station in Antarctica.

The organisers have so far struggled to find a clear-cut way of conveying their main message. Even rock performers have criticised the concept.

Roger Daltrey, of the Who, said another concert would simply waste fuel; Bob Geldof, who helped to organise Live Aid and Live 8, said people were already aware of the greenhouse effect; while Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, labelled it “private jets for climate change”.

Update: a chuckleworthy contribution to the comments thread at the above article (it is a comment on an earlier comment - scroll down for context)

"I really admire the action of Al gore and her/his followers" You are mistaken, Al Gore is not a hermaphrodite. She is a beautiful lady.

Jono's views on Climate Change

Climate change seems to be all the rage these days, and this blog is no exception. I thought I'd share the views of "Jono" as stated in a comment thread on Andrew Bartlett's blog:

The best way to become carbon neutral is to stop breathing.

As much as the Greens and environmentalists would love us to all just shut up and die, they aren’t even going to hint at it when they discuss their hairbrained policies and regulations.

Instead they will talk about abstract nonsense like “the environment” and “climate change”.

So what? The climate changes, it always has for centuries, why does it become a political issue to justify yet another massive tax and invasion of property rights ?

The Greens are the biggest threat to liberty since communism.

With a very quick review of these insightful few words I found examples of:

False Positioning and an Unfounded Generalisation: … as the Greens and environmentalists would love us to all just shut up and die…

Weasel Words: …they will talk about abstract nonsense like “the environment” and “climate change”.

Misuse of Information followed by Motive Impugning: The climate changes, it always has for centuries, why does it become a political issue to justify yet another massive tax and invasion of property rights ?

And lastly, an Argument to Consequences combined with Poisoning the Well: The Greens are the biggest threat to liberty since communism.

Please note, lest people misread the above, I am not making a case for or against the reality of climate change. I'm just pointing out some dodgy arguments. I've made my position apropos to climate change clear before and can't be bothered to rehash the same old points in the comments section.

Suggestion for a fun evening - all-in Devil's Advocate wrestling

Here's the suggestion:

Rent a copy of An Inconvenient Truth. Invite a group of friends over. and watch it, then watch this interesting video (streamed via the web and a computer onto your gigantic flat screen).



Randomly divide the group into Anthropogenic Global Warming zealots and AGW deniers. Give no clues as to which individuals might be playing Devil's Advocate, and which might be expressing genuine opinions.

Stand back and watch the fun.

Here's the video in its entirety.

Michael Crichton article on the perils of consensus science

For the record: I am a global warming skeptic, not a global warming denier. I subscribe to the precautionary principle, and I produce a tiny fraction of one percent of the Carbon Dioxide produced by the bad faith maestro, Al Gore. (Not a proud boast - after all, who doesn't?)

An extract from the Chrichton article appears below. The complete article may be found here, and is worth reading. Particularly for those interested in unusual examples of the Popular Opinion Fallacy.

In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.

Climate skeptics

Here’s a great example of what it means to be a humbug hunter. This comes from news.com.au and all the associated papers - Climate change 'a campaign of alarmism' by Denis Peters:

A CONCERTED and well-organised campaign has created alarm over human-induced climate change, industrial magnate Sir Arvi Parbo says... The former head of Western Mining Corporation, BHP and Alcoa Australia, is the keynote speaker at a gathering of climate change sceptics being hosted by Western Australian Liberal MP Dr Dennis Jensen, at Parliament House. It also is supported by the Lavoisier Group, an Australian organisation set up as a base for climate change sceptics...

Sir Arvi said he had kept an open mind through 20 years of listening to debate about climate change but was now witnessing a "semi-religious fervour" overshadowing it. "One must admire the skilful way in which the public has been led to believe that there is no longer any uncertainty, and that disastrous climate change caused by humans is imminent," he said. "The appointment of Mr Al Gore as adviser to the UK Government on climate change is a good example...

"His film, The Inconvenient Truth has been widely publicised, has been seen by, and has influenced millions of people around the world. "It has been severely criticised for deliberately and grossly exaggerating and distorting the issues and I understand that the recently published summary for policymakers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contradicts a number of Mr Gore's major contentions. "This, in contrast, has had virtually no publicity and no effect on the public."

...Greens climate change spokeswoman Senator Christine Milne later described the forum as "the last gasp of the Dad's Army of sceptics". "What they try to do is give the impression that climate change science is uncertain," she said. "They've been reasonably successful because they've been well funded, as with the tobacco industry before them. "Now this group of people is trying to extend the life of the fossil fuel industry. "They are backed by the coal industry and the oil industry." She said the Lavoisier Group was associated with the Liberal Party and right-wing bodies such as the HR Nicholls Society.

This is a good example of hunting humbug because I, like Milne, am not a climate change skeptic. As far as I can tell, the science behind anthropogenic climate change is quite conclusive. But as a "seeker after truth", I don't care about winning (blatant hypocrisy aside), I care about the quality of an argument.

So, though I might agree with her with regard to climate change, the arguments she uses to attempt to disparage the "Dad's Army of sceptics" are completely flawed and would suggest she is a deeply disturbed individual. In a few short sentences she finds the time to Poison the Well (associated with the Liberal Party and right-wing bodies) and Impugn Motives (trying to extend the life of the fossil fuel industry). These points may well be true, but they say nothing about the validity of the arguments forwarded by the skeptics. Much easier to spout some standard political ad hominem than address any of the actual points made by Parbo I suppose.

Miranda Devine rolls her eyes at climate change…

…and suggestions it gets her "all hot and bothered". From her SMH column - Geeks in white coats shall inherit the earth:

Every time I write an article pointing out there is no scientific consensus on the extent of man-made - as opposed to natural - climate change, or that attacks on genetically modified food are flawed, I am accused, quite seriously, of being on the payroll of Monsanto or Western Mining.

This is simply untrue - see this article in Science for evidence of a scientific consensus:

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

Any field of scientific inquiry moves forward through hypothesis and counter-hypothesis. Devine states that the jury is out on anthropocentric climate change. She is guilty of using the rhetorical tactic of Exaggerated Conflict. Her implied argument is that uncertainly within the field of climate change means the whole field can be safely doubted.

(Also, have you ever noticed that, yes, there are climate change "skeptics", but none of them actually ever seem to be those who study climate change? There are also "evolution skeptics" (read: creationists) but we don't take them seriously either, because none of them are evolutionary biologists. This is not to say either of these "non-experts" couldn't be right, but I know which group I'd put my money on - if I was so inclined to gamble, which I'm not.)

She then moves on with a favoured False Analogy of the climate change "skeptics":

Environmentalism is the powerful new secular religion and politically correct scientists are its high priests, rescuing the planet from the apocalypse of climate change, as the Doomsday clock ticks down. Kyoto is the Promised Land and Bush/Howard/capitalism/industry/farmers are Satan.

If you need the explanation as to why this is a False Analogy then see a previous post - McCrann's false analogy. Now it's time to bring in a heavy weight - a scientist (obviously the one scientist that is not biased) - to back up her point:

Perth exploration geologist Louis Hissink suspects "politicised science has replaced religion as the arbiter of human affairs ... priesthoods of both organisations are concerned with what happens in the future and that current behaviour is thought to affect that future, hence it needs to be proscribed and prescribed".

And so we have an Appeal to Authority. This one guy is an authority (an exploration geologist - on climate change - he couldn't possibly work for the mining industry... surely not?), but let's ignore the 928 papers surveyed by Science Magazine in which none of them disagreed with the scientific consensus. (Note that by talking to only one person for her column, someone who tells her what she wants us to hear, she is Stacking the Deck - here's Hissink's blog.)

A bit of advice - try not to use opinion columns as a primary source for anything - especially science. They'll let any fool write for a newspaper these days, no matter how pointless everything they say is.

Update: Expert scientist guy Louis Hissink doesn't think the much of the Big Bang either, and rates it about the same as biblical creationism:

The Big Bang is as fictitious as Creation, the two being the one and same event, but separated intellectually by an enormous expanse of chronological time. It is the religious belief of a competing, more liberal minded, religious sect… the ‘Big Bang" fact is scientifically absurd.

Just what science does he believe in? Doubting everything is the same as believing everything - both require limited cognitive function.

Update 2: Some of the most prestigious science academies in the world issued this statement on climate change - Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (note – pdf).

McCrann's False Analogy

Looking through some past opinion columns I came across this beauty of a False Analogy by Terry McCrann in the Herald Sun - Global warming's core flaw.

GLOBAL warming – or `climate change', as it now tends to be called by its acolytes, in case it inconveniently cools things along the way – is as theological as any religion.That's to say, it rests on a series of beliefs, which might or might not have some relationship to objective fact. But in any event, the key is the belief.

Now I don't wish to Appeal to (lack of) Authority, make an Unfounded Generalization, Impugn his Motives, use Special Pleading or engage in Personal Abuse – but generally, asinine and opinionating economists such as McCrann lack any expertise (authority) in matters of science and theology. Not only that, they are always motivated by money. Whereas, given my background in philosophy of science, my expertise as a science teacher and the fact that my first name is Theo, I can claim insight into both Science and Theology!

McCrann's analogy is inept. (This is not to say everything he says is inept - though he does engage in other fallacies in his opinion piece such as false positioning.) Scientific knowledge is a set of beliefs, but it is belief based on physical evidence and repeatable (thus verifiable) experiments. The domain of science is physical. Given the right education and required mental faculties – anyone can comprehend and access the evidence for scientific claims. Religious knowledge is a set of beliefs, but it is belief based on revelation. The domain of religion (should be) non-physical. But religious belief is not based on any physical evidence – it is a matter of personal faith.

Thus his comment: " But in any event, the key is the belief." is without any foundation. The key is empirical data. Different theories for the data will be proposed and argued over, but this is how science proceeds. New experiments, studies and procedures will eventually resolve which theory "wins".

If I were an economist, the last area of human inquiry I would compare something to is religion. Economic "science", playing the stock market etc., conforms much more closely to this description than does science: "…it rests on a series of beliefs, which might or might not have some relationship to objective fact. But in any event, the key is the belief."