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.

Nun Bowling

Made this video for laughs (small things...) and to use the slow mo feature on my phone camera.

BOB ELLIS - 37 YEARS OF FUTILE FAITH

This post is a three pronged effort. The distortature is by Jef, and we have some words from me (Theo) and my old mate Ben.

Austalian political commentator Bob Ellis recently attended the Festival of Ideas and heard a talk by Simon Singh on alternative medicine. He was not impressed with Simon's views on Chiropractors:

"I’ve been going to chiropractors for 37 years, and it seems to me they've cured not only back pain but energy loss, memory loss and, lately, impotence. And I need to know what the difference is between a real cure of impotence and a perceived cure of impotence".

I also noted my dog Oompa was cured by the same chiropractor, Anton, of back pain and limping, and asked how a dog could suffer "a placebo effect". ...

I came away very angry at him and his kind. They have added immeasurably to needless human suffering on the planet, and needless animal suffering too. ...

Simon Singh reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld, another torture denier. Sleeplessness isn’t torture. Standing up for twelve hours isn't torture. I said so. Simon says the pain chiropractors cure is imaginary pain. And Simon is an honourable man.

Hit the link to read the entire ignorant and scientifically illiterate rant. Ben and I just had to reply.

Ben :

21 Jul 2009 12:41:10pm

Sorry Bob,

So many alt-woo fallacies in one place... where to begin?

Chiro is based on pre-scientific (i.e. magical) thinking (hint: Google "vertebral subluxation"). There is no clinical evidence (and I repeat, no clinical evidence) that it is a useful treatment for ANYTHING apart from a specific type of lower back pain (which is just as effectively treated by a good massage).

How does he keep a straight face?

A great example of Gibberish.

Homeopathic vaccine for swine flu

I've been getting really worried about the spread of swine flu around the world and the lack of progress being made for a vaccine. I want a vaccine now and can't wait for governments to get their respective acts together. Moreover, how can I trust "big pharma" to get the vaccine out on time. In order to make money - which we know is their real motivation - they need the flu to spread and are need people die from it. I have decided to do something about it!

I recently contracted H1N1. While I was ill, I flushed my snotty tissues down the toilet. By now they will have disintergrated and made their way into the Pacific ocean. I haven't calculated the exact dilution of the snot to seawater ratio - but it's got to be close to 15C, surely?

So - if you want to inoculate yourself against the swine flu - just pop in the Pacific Ocean for a quick swim and you'll be right. Give it another couple of weeks and molecules of my swine flu ridden tissue should have diffused throughout the world's oceans - then everyone will be sorted!

Go me and go Samuel Hahnemann!

Skeptic Zone Interview

I've just had the pleasure of being interviewed by Richard Saunders of the Skeptic Zone podcast (and skeptical judge on "The One" - Australia's Top Cold Reader Psychic TV show). It's show 36 - check it out.

Metronome synchronisation

This is pretty cool

Mobile view

Using the magic of google, I've created a link to a "mobile" version of this site (it's actually the google reader view). The full site renders okay on a decent smartphone, but on my LG viewty, for exmple, is takes too long. The google reader version is super fast though. Hit the link on the top of the page and bookmark it on your phone for easy access when you're out and about!

Simon Singh and libel

I'd love to know if these Chiropractors are acting in Bad Faith or not, by bringing this bogus libel case to court. Unfortunately it's not possible to read minds...

Hit the "Sense About Science" link up the top left to show your support for Simon Singh - go teh interwebs!

Fallacy Short Descriptions

This is the short description of the fallacies for quick reference. You should check the full description (in the book), read the examples we've blogged about (linked on the sidebar) and listen to the associated podcast for the complete picture.

Appeal to Authority: Advocate makes an unwarranted appeal to an authoritative person or organization in support of a proposition.

Argument by Artifice: Advocate puts forward convoluted and weak assertions which any disinterested observer would perceive as artificially constructed in order to make a case.

Argument by Slogan: Advocate uses a simplistic statement or slogan rather than logical argument in a debate or discussion.

Argument to Consequences: Advocate claims that a proposition cannot be true because it ought not to be true (or vice versa).

Begging the Question: Advocate makes a circular argument where the conclusion is in essence a restatement or paraphrase of the premise.

Browbeating: Advocate is threatening and overbearing in argument and doesn't allow the opponent the opportunity to state his or her case.

Burden of Proof: Advocate fails to take responsibility for arguing a case by claiming that the opponent must first prove that the opposite case is true.

Burden of Solution: Advocate denigrates a suggested solution to a problem but fails to propose a viable alternative.

Cultural Origins: Advocate makes an unwarranted claim that a particular way of doing things is best because of its cultural origins.

Exaggerated Conflict: Advocate claims that because there is some degree of uncertainty in a domain of knowledge, nothing at all is certain.

Factoid Propagation: Advocate asserts the truth of a proposition that is commonly assumed to be true, when it is not in fact established as true.

False Analogy: Advocate puts forward an analogy in support of a case, but the analogy only has superficial similarities to the case in question.

False Attribution: Advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

False Cause; Correlation Error: Advocate asserts that there is a causal link between phenomena, when the link is only apparent rather than real.

False Compromise: Advocate seeks to reconcile two differing views by "splitting the difference" and falsely claiming that the result reflects reality.

False Dichotomy: Advocate represents an issue as "black or white" when in fact the reality is "shades of grey".

False Dilemma: Advocate portrays one option as necessarily excluding another option, when in fact there is no necessary connection.

False Positioning: Advocate attacks a weakened, exaggerated, or over-simplified form of the opponent's position rather than the real position.

Gibberish: Advocate presents an argument or assertion that is so garbled in its presentation that it is essentially meaningless.

Impugning Motives: Advocate makes an unwarranted claim that the opponent has devious motives.

Misuse of Information: Advocate misunderstands or deliberately misuses a statistic, fact or theory to support an argument.

Moral Equivalence: Advocate seeks to draw false moral comparisons between two phenomena which are not morally equivalent.

Moving the Goalposts: Advocate changes the discussion focus by seeking to force the opponent to tackle a more difficult or different version of the topic.

Observational Selection: Advocate pays close attention to confirming evidence, but ignores evidence which is contrary to his or her position.

Personal Abuse: Advocate mounts a personal attack on the opponent rather than the argument put forward by the opponent.

Poisoning the Well: Advocate seeks to undermine an opponent's position by linking the position to an original source which is unjustly denigrated.

Popular Opinion: Advocate makes an unwarranted appeal to popular opinion (e.g. "most people agree that...") in support of a proposition.

Sanctimony: Advocate makes an unwarranted claim that his or her position is morally superior to the opponent's position.

Simple-Minded Certitude: Advocate has an unshakeable belief which remains unchanged even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

Single Cause: Advocate asserts that there is only one cause of a phenomenon or problem, when the evidence suggests multiple factors.

Slippery Slope: Advocate asserts without evidence that if we take "one step in the wrong direction", it will inexorably lead to catastrophe.

Special Pleading: Advocate claims special insights into an issue, and that the opponent is incapable of achieving the same level of understanding.

Stacking the Deck: Advocate is aware of counter-arguments to his or her position, but conceals them in order to defeat the opponent.

Unfounded Generalization: Advocate draws a general conclusion about a phenomenon based on unrepresentative examples of the phenomenon.

Weasel Words: Advocate uses emotionally loaded labels to boost his or her position or to denigrate the opponent's position.

Podcast - Hunting Humbug 101: Tutorial 26 - Begging the Question

Begging the question is a type of circular argument that all should be familiar with, because then everyone would know about using the premise of an argument as the conclusion.

Play the tutorial 


Powered by Podbean.com

or download the mp3:  

Dr. Phil outwitted

I'm almost done mixing the next podcast (on Begging the Question). Meanwhile, try this video. The guest special pleads, Dr. Phil throws in a false analogy (one of his favourite moves), the guest points out it's a false analogy then outwits Dr. Phil in the commercial break. Legend.

Humbug Bingo

I've just created a Humbug Fallacy Bingo card. Use it the next time you go to a debate, or watch a purveyor of woo give a lecture, or do a humanities degree... Refresh the link to get a new random card. You can print it off or check off hits online - it works very well on my phone over a 3G connection. Tiny URL = http://tinyurl.com/fallacybingo

Podcast: Hunting Humbug 101 Tutorial 25: Appeal to Authority

Sorry for the delay in this podcast. We were busy. We're very important people you know. In this podcast we look at the fallacy Appeal to Authority.  It is arguably one of the hardest to identify - or rather, easiest to Red Flag Faux Pas . We also discuss the most vile, sickening, morally bankrupt and inane version of this fallacy - Appeal to Celebrity. Examples from 9-11 troofers, anthropogenic climate change, Monty Python and Team America

Some other links mentioned in the podcast

• 911 in plane site 
• An Appeal to a Lack of Authority - Ian Plimer - Ben McNeil ("Climate Change Expert") on Sky News

• Off topic - on the last Skeptics' Guide to the Universe they discussed the problem of induction: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=195
• I wrote an article about this for Philosophy Now. I've linked to it. Logical vs Rational and Occam's razor.
  

Download:  

or Listen:

Powered by Podbean.com

National Science Literacy Maps

I am so impressed with this site: http://strandmaps.nsdl.org/

If you're science teacher, or know  a science teacher, make sure they know about this!

Podcast: Tutorial 24 - Moral Equivalence

Oops... I uploaded the podcast on Tuesday and forgot to post it here.

This podcast is on Moral Equivalence.  Clips used are from Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t - the episode about PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), and the documentary Manufacturing Dissent.

Download:  

Or listen in player

Powered by Podbean.com

Humbug Hunting practice

Website reader (and/or podcast listener?) Michael sent me this:

Hi, Theo,

Thought you might want to check out www.badarguments.org -- a site that lets you practice spotting errors in arguments.

Best,

M

_______________

Check it out - it looks pretty good.

Open-Mindedness, science and skepticism

I couldn't have put it better myself.

(Hat tip: Richard Dawkins.net)

What do I do next?

If you've ever wondered how you can contribute to skepticism, this seems like the best place to start for ideas: What Do I Do Next? 105 ways to promote skeptical activism.

Skeptics' Circle 108

The 108 Skeptics' Circle is over at Podblack. We've gone from a podcast, to a youtube!