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.

Conservative bias about 'leftist bias'

The ABC recently published an article Teachers, schools in firing line as conservatives rail against 'leftist agenda',  based on their Australia Talks National Survey. The crux of the piece is that: 'One Nation voters are turning on the mainstream education system as conservatives across the country express a deep mistrust of what they say is a "leftist agenda" taking over the classroom.'

There's nothing wrong with the story per se, but the headline and associated graphs they use send a misleading message. They show the satisfaction of voters of different parties with the education system and with teachers.

However, they are out of 100% for each party, thus greatly 'biasing' the results for parties that have a small number of voters. Consider the sizes of the orange columns, which belong to One Nation, who nationally polled 1.29% at the last federal election.

When you adjust the graphs based on the national first preferences, making them out of 100% in total, this is the result.

There are certainly lessons to be learned in terms of why different groups responded to the survey in this way, but it should be kept in perspective. This isn’t about ‘conservatives’, given the blue LNP would fall under that category. It’s about a small far right party that already gets quite a bit of media attention, especially when compared to the proportion of the population who throw votes their way. Further, as the article goes on to say:"[t]he root of the frustration can be traced to a wider dissatisfaction with the political landscape...", rather than the education system and teachers themselves. 

Mike Huckabee's arse backwards analogy

One of the main problems with arguments from analogy is that it's often quite easy to reverse them. From The Guardian:

The Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee on Sunday said... forcing people opposed to same-sex marriage to accept it was the same as telling Jews they had to serve “bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli”.

No Mike, no. Saying gay people are not allowed to marry would be like Jews telling non-Jews they can't eat bacon.

You've actually just made an argument for gay marriage. We live in pluralist democratic societies with governments that (should) say: "You're free to follow your own beliefs and ways of living so long as you don't force those beliefs on others."

The correct analogy: "Jews are free to not eat and serve bacon-wrapped shrimp, but others are. You are free to not be gay and married, but others are."

The F-35 false dilemma

Ever since the announcement that the Australian Federal Government is going to buy 58 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at a cost of $12.4 billion, the anti-Government social media memes have been in full swing.

There’s nothing wrong with criticising any specific Government policy. The report linked to above outlines some of the (I assume legitimate) criticism of the JSF program. However, memes such as these are examples of disingenuous (I won’t say idiotic) and win-at-all-costs thinking that only serve to reinforce partisan politics and do not lead to civil discourse or help with getting to the truth of a matter. 
Specifically, these arguments make the false dilemma fallacy - the error of portraying one choice as necessarily excluding another, even though there is no necessary connection; and the false cause fallacy - asserting there is a causal link between the funding of the JSFs and other funding. 

Even if one doesn’t like a particular political party, organisation or person, every issue should be treated on its own merits and in good faith. To do otherwise is to engage in dogmatic unthinking. Politically, announcing the $12 billion spending adjacent to discussion of spending cuts in other areas might not have been very savvy. However, a disinterested analysis recognises that one has nothing to do with the other, anymore than any other government expenditure. 

The total 2013 budget for Australia is almost $400 billion. As this interactive shows, social security and welfare is $138 billion, education is nearly $30 billion, and recreation and culture is $3.7 billion. These figures are for a single year. 

My understanding is the $12 billion had been accounted for in the defense spending cycle. Unless you are a complete pacifist who believes Australia should disband its military (in which case I say good day to you sir/ma’am, could you please leave my website and go back to playing with your imaginary rainbow unicorn), you will recognise the need for this spending. You might disagree with this specific program, on its own merits, but not based on some supposed link to another completely unrelated program. 

Unless you can establish that Australia could spend, say, $3 billion less on alternative fighters that have similar capabilities; and that this $3 billion could go to another area of government expenditure, you are clearly interested in winning a political fight, rather than discussing a real issue.

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."

Federal election predictions

Australia is having a federal election tomorrow. Here is my prediction for when the Liberal/National coalition wins. All across social media I'll see the following comments, in order of likelihood:

1. I'm moving to NZ / Canada / somewhere "more enlightened"

2. If only people were more educated, then they'd have made an informed and intelligent decision and voted the same way as me.

3. The biased media is why the stupid people voted for the Lib/Nat coalition. 

4. I am ashamed/embarrassed to be Australian

5. This country is filled with racist homophobic bigots.

6. People should have to do a test about the basic policies of the major parties before being able to vote.

Facebook comments about ousted Australian PM Julia Gillard

Just in case you didn't think people's treatment and views about Julia Gillard weren't coloured by her gender, here's a selection of comments from Facebook. One of the great things about Facebook is that people do use their real names...