Valuing scientific expertise

This is the second of two posts that go hand-in-hand. The first post is a brief overview of some important concepts and well established results of psychology that help me think about my thinking. This 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".  

You are not an expert (and neither am I) 

As Socrates is said to have said, wisdom is knowing that you don't know. A big part of critical thinking is intellectual humility. While it is possible to become an expert at something, it takes years and years of training in a discipline. Think about something that for you this applies to. Think about all the time, hard work, practice and dedication that it took to earn that expertise. Think about all the mistakes you learned from and the pitfalls you now know how to avoid, On that one thing you're probably pretty safe talking at length about all that you know. And when you meet other experts, they can easily recognise you know what you're doing or talking about. 

Now think about non-experts and novices trying to talk to you about it. How much credit do you give their views? Well, that's you (and me) when it comes to every other field of human endeavour. It's the ultimate form of arrogant overconfidence to assume your opinion on a subject that you don’t have expertise in has much, if any, merit. And when you dismiss expert consensus out-of-hand, by definition, your dismissal of something you know nothing about is worthless. In fact, it says everything about you and nothing about the experts or their view(s). Imagine a non-expert novice dismissing your views out of hand when discussing a subject you are an expert in? 

Scientific (and expert) consensus

A scientific consensus is more than scientists within a field being surveyed for their beliefs or tallying their views in research papers. It relates to what the researchers in a field are interested in studying and why. When there is a question to be answered or a problem to be solved, they'll be researching it and arguing about it; i.e. doing science. But when a question is answered to sufficient satisfaction, e.g. anthropogenic climate change, evolution by natural selection or the second law of thermodynamics, there is little or no incentive to keep researching this question — it's done. Scientists operate within well-established paradigms for a reason — they're well established based on the convergence of theory with data.

Exaggerated Conflict

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Inflated conflict; exaggerated dispute; false dichotomy.

Description

The advocate expresses the view that because there is a dispute between experts in a domain of knowledge, the entire field of scholarship (or at least the specific issue in dispute) should be rejected.

Example

Graham Flatliner is eating with gusto his second bacon and egg burger of the day. His concerned workmate Ed Fuddy is witnessing his consumption. Ed is finally moved to remark: "I don't understand how you can eat so much of that... I feel ill just imagining the way the cholesterol is coating your arteries. If you keep eating like that, your high level of cholesterol means you will get heart disease and keel over before you reach fifty."

Graham responds: "That's not true. I was reading about a doctor in Sweden who is an expert in heart disease. He recently completed a study in which he found no link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease, so high cholesterol won't give me heart problems. The so-called experts are always changing their minds and they can't even agree amongst themselves. Next year the Heart Foundation will probably recommend deep-fried pork crackling."

Comment

Outright rejection of a field of knowledge just because there is some level of dispute in the field is fallacious. After all, any field of inquiry advances through a degree of dispute and debate. At times, professional disagreement even at the margins can lead to rivalry and hostility. When such disagreements become public, non-specialists may be dismissive of the whole field. This is not an appropriate position for the seeker after truth. The critical thinker does not dismiss anything out of hand. He or she examines an issue and makes judgments consistent with the revealed facts.

In the present example, and if Ed were a seeker after truth, he might ask Graham for the details of the Swedish research paper. In the meantime, he could point out to Graham that it is the weight of evidence that matters when individuals are trying to make healthy lifestyle choices. He could explicitly reject Graham's position by pointing out that Graham is exaggerating the degree of uncertainty in research on the role of dietary cholesterol in heart disease. The reasonable person will not regard uncertainty in any field of inquiry as a problem. Uncertainty is far better than dogmatism or unjustified certainty. However, lack of absolute consensus does not mean that "anything goes".

Another fallacy examined in this book, false dichotomy, may at times be difficult to distinguish from exaggerated conflict. The key feature of exaggerated conflict is the tendency of an advocate to dismiss a field of inquiry because of a false claim that "the experts" are in complete disagreement.

If the experts are in complete disagreement, then it is appropriate to reserve judgment about the issue, or to make a provisional decision one way or the other, while remaining open-minded and ready to change a decision as more information emerges. Note that "sitting on the fence" on an issue pending more information is a perfectly respectable position for a seeker after truth to take.

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.)

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).

Sue Dunlevey confuses scepticism with cynicism

The fallacy of exaggerated conflict - the advocate claims that because there is some degree of uncertainty in a domain of knowledge, nothing at all is certain. Dunlevey, in her piece The newest health fad is ... scepticism:


…new research has debunked many of the hotly held preventative health tenets. …Governments, doctors and every major health body in the country wants us to lose weight, our weight problem is referred to as an epidemic. But just this week the Journal of the American Medical Association carried an article that found you are more likely to die if you are underweight than if overweight. Being overweight can increase your chances of survival.

For decades we've been told to slip, slop, slap and keep our skin out of the sun to prevent skin cancer. Well, new research by Associate Professor Rebecca Mason at Sydney University shows the vitamin D our skin makes when it is exposed to the sun may actually help protect us against skin cancer. We need regular, small doses of sun to build up protection against skin cancer, and we're not getting it. Professor Mason says we need five to seven minutes with our arms and face uncovered in the sun each day outside the danger time of 10am to 3pm.

And so Dunlevey continues, exaggerating other conflicts until she concludes:

…The more you reflect on the findings of health scientists the more my mother's wise advice seems to be true. "Everything in moderation" is her motto and that, in essence, seems to be what millions of dollars in scientific research has discovered about dieting, alcohol consumption, exercise and even exposure to the sun.

I.e., All that scientific research is a waste of time. Of course, she completely disregards what the research is actually saying. For example, here is the conclusion from the Journal of the American Medical Association paper:

Underweight and obesity, particularly higher levels of obesity, were associated with increased mortality relative to the normal weight category. The impact of obesity on mortality may have decreased over time, perhaps because of improvements in public health and medical care. These findings are consistent with the increases in life expectancy in the United States and the declining mortality rates from ischemic heart disease.

This conclusion hardly goes against the Governments, doctors and major health bodies that want us to lose weight. I'm quite certain I've never stumbled across advice suggesting it's healthy to be underweight - merely that it's unhealthy to be overweight.

Her paragraph on skin cancer is so riddled with erroneous reasoning that I can hardly be bothered. But persist I will, with one small point. Professor Masson's study advises five to seven minutes outside of the… "danger time". So, in what way is this contradictory to advice given by skin cancer experts?

Dunlevey tries to paint a picture of contradictory advice given by health experts. But when one actually looks at the fine print, it is clear that the advice is not contradictory, but rather, specific and detailed. But details are boring compared to conflict.

Now, should I go and have a second helping of dinner, or skip breakfast and lunch tomorrow? And where's my hat...

Examples of Exaggerated Conflict

The advocate claims that because there is some degree of uncertainty in a domain of knowledge, nothing at all is certain.

• Antarctica is still cold
• Intelligent falling
• No conflict here, just scientists doing their jobs - you know - science
• Miranda Devine rolls her eyes at climate change…
• Sue Dunlevey confuses scepticism with cynicism

For a comprehensive and considered written commentary on Exaggerated Conflict (and other fallacies) - see The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking - Humbug!

Podcast on Exaggerated Conflict (show notes)



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.