Entry 951, on 2009-02-23 at 20:22:17 (Rating 3, Skepticism)
I recently listened to another controversial podcast. It was an interview with Susan Jacoby from the Center for Inquiry which discussed her new book, The Age of American Unreason. The book's subject is the abysmal lack of critical thinking (or apparently any thinking at all) displayed by a large part of the American population. While this book is specifically about America I think similar criticisms would apply to most other countries, expect for the seemingly greater support for silly religious beliefs in the US.
So what are these silly beliefs? Well various polls have discovered the following beliefs amongst Americans: 50% believe in ghosts, 33% in astrology, 75% in angels, and 80% in miracles. Over 50% don't believe evolution, and 67% want creationism to be taught alongside evolution in schools. A Gallup poll showed 30% believe the Bible is literally true, but 50% don't even know that Genesis is first book in the Bible.
So what does this mean? Well I don't think it simply means that people believe in things which have no real proof. I think it shows a total lack of knowledge and ability to think logically at all. If 67% want creation taught but 50% don't even know anything about the book in the Bible which mainly deals with that myth then any credibility their opinion might have had seems to disappear.
Its like Jacoby said about the way these people must think: "I don't know what Genesis is, but I believe it anyway." America is one of the most religious countries in the western world and half its population don't even know what the first book of their religious book is? Unbelievable!
You really have to wonder what most Americans do in school (I must emphasise here that the same applies to may other countries and many brilliant people do result from the American education system, I am talking about the majority though) because another survey found that 20% of people think the Sun revolves around Earth!
Jacoby emphasises that anti-rationalism isn't limited to people of one political persuasion. It occurs in the left and the right. She says Bush was not the problem, the ignorance of citizens who voted for him and allowed him to lie to them is. Of course, it is easy to lie to a population that is so ignorant that only 23% of graduates and 6% of the rest could even find the major countries in the Middle East on a map with the boundaries already marked out! (and yes, I just tested myself - I got them all right!)
One of the causes of this problem is something Jacoby calls "dumb objectivity". Its often claimed that America is a very fair country. They insist that everyone should get an equal opportunity. That isn't necessarily the reality, of course, but it is the perception. That fairness extends to the media (newspapers, tv, magazines, the internet) giving equal time to well supported scientific ideas and to alternative ideas which might have very little real supporting evidence.
An example she gave was a cover story in Time magazine regarding end of world scenarios, such as the Rapture, as it they were reasonable. Another would be the idea that creationism should be given equal time in schools with evolution. But if fairness was that important wouldn't every other creation myth need to be covered as well? Apparently they want to be fair, but not that fair!
Objectivity is great but if a source purports to represent reality then the ideas it includes should be based on reality, not fantasy. Its like saying a course on mythology would probably not need to include a scientific discussion of evolution. Let's stick with objectivity and fairness but don't extend it to the point that it achieves the complete opposite of what was intended!
It looks like I have another one for you to ponder: global warming. Looks like the political corruption of this issue is being more exposed every day. I keep hearing of scientists exclaiming "What the hell?".
Here is the latest and one that is going to be difficult for the Al Gore worshippers to dismiss. The book "Heaven and Earth" by Ian Pilmer as reviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald: Beware the climate of conformity
Some key quotes from the review (and note that the reviewer acknowledges himself to be a believer in climate change): "As Plimer writes: "An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.""
"The most important point to remember about Plimer is that he is Australia's most eminent geologist. As such, he thinks about time very differently from most of us. He takes the long, long view. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. He writes: "Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone.""
"The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy."
"The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology. "But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer-reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human-induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. It has no mathematical or evidential basis.""
"Natural systems are far more complex than computer models."
"The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists."
Ouch!
All interesting stuff that now has me more interested in a topic I have been generally ambivalent about to date. It reminds me of a book I read last year that dismisses the many writings in business and management literature that seek to provide a formula for excellence in business performance. The author there too took the approach that it's all a lot more complex than some quick answer or study, that we need to look at the bigger picture and associated interdependencies. Looks like we have a clever bloke now who raises this with climate change.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2009-04-14 at 18:38:01:
Yes well books and reviews in a newspaper aren't really particularly relevant to the academic study of climate (or anything else). I agree that there are intelligent people who disagree with the IPCC report but the vast majority don't. It might turn out that all the alarm over climate change is misplaced, but I doubt it. We should act on the majority opinion of the experts, not an occasional aberrant opinion.
Comment 3 by SBFL on 2009-04-15 at 06:57:27:
Okay so just ignore a 500 page book covering decades of research just because it doesn't fit your (political?) views. Just dismiss it as "aberrant". I see you are becoming exactly what you criticise. Ever read "Animal Farm"?
Comment 4 by OJB on 2009-04-15 at 10:36:26:
No I don't ignore the book totally but I do point out that real research is published in real journals where it is subject to peer review and all the other safeguards the scientific system has in place to minimise bad information being distributed. There has to be a reason that anyone would publish scientific information in a book instead of a journal.
Comment 5 by Jim on 2009-04-15 at 11:32:32:
I agree with SBFL that scientists have a lot to gain from global warming being true so they try to hide evidence which disagrees with it. Sometimes books are the only way that we see the stuff that disagrees with what the greeny loony left science types want us to see.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2009-04-15 at 19:47:44:
If you think about it you will see this claim doesn't really make sense. Most research supporting global warming comes from the US where the administration, which provided most of the funding, really didn't want to know (at least until recently). So why would scientists upset their funding source by presenting information the funders didn't want to hear, unless the researchers were convinced it was true?
Comment 7 by SBFL on 2009-04-20 at 04:33:05:
Re comment 4: I didn't see the bit where the author has refused to publish his work in scientific journals.
Re comment 6: maybe the funding didn't come with the condition of a predefined politically-preferable outcome. I know this would be a bizarre scenario for those on the left, as we have seen with the "Helengrad" stories (loyalty gets you further than competence when working in the public service under the former government), but did you actually ever consider this?
Nevertheless, I am sure there is some genuine scientific evidence supporting climate change as a real risk. But since you are "passionate about the truth" (to quote you in post 980), I am surprised you are so dismissive of credible research in this area.
Comment 8 by OJB on 2009-04-20 at 20:25:26:
You were quoting material from a book rather than from a properly reviewed journal. Books just aren't quite as credible. If this material is published in a journal then let's see the reference.
We're talking about the Bush administration here. Do you really believe there was no political element to government funding? That government was known as one of the worst ever for being selective with what science it believed and rejected.
Show me the credible research (not just a book please). You don't have a science background, do you? Do you even know how real science works?
Comment 9 by SBFL on 2009-04-21 at 07:30:51:
Correct. Considering the authors background I see no reason why much has not been published in scientific journals. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't - but I would not assume it hasn't FOR NO GOOD REASON. The point I am making is that immediately you are dismissive, assuming everything without knowing. I see no reason why this author is not credible. You do. WHY? If you know for sure that nothing he has studied previously was never published in some credible form or another, the you would have a starting point, but you don't even know this at this stage, do you? So why so dismissive? Would be because he provides credible evidence against your politically motivated "scientific" beliefs? I wonder.
"Do you even know how real science works?". Interesting question. Seems I've a bit of a sore point!
Comment 10 by OJB on 2009-04-21 at 11:40:31:
The global warming issue is a scientific one. Science is not conducted through popular books. Real science happens at conferences and through respectable journals. If you show me the real science this person has done I will be happy to have a look. People often publish in books because their work would not stand up to the scrutiny of peer review. That's not necessarily the case here but I am suspicious.
My scientific views aren't politically motivated. What would I possibly have to gain politically (or for any other reason) by pretending global warming exists when it doesn't?
People who try to settle scientific questions by quoting non-scientific sources are annoying. Sometimes its harder to debate someone who knows nothing about the mechanisms of how science progresses than it is to debate a knowledgeable person because they just don't know enough to know when they are wrong. Not saying this applies to you, but just mentioning it in general! :)
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE