This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.
Here's the problem...
When you don't actually discuss things beforehand you wind up just giving into the most aggressive group. Nine times out of ten, that aggressive group is filled with idiots and nut cases who want to ignore everything that does not support their argument and so you get crap science that mostly contradicts itself and in the end is useless for anything but garnering more funding.
Because the people who insisted on the funding in the first place are basing their careers and reputations on finding the exact outcome they claimed they would get, they have to throw scientific method out the window and don't ever dare admit they were wrong and have no choice but to attack anyone who questions their methods or results.
So you get nut cases trying to deoxygenate the ocean in an attempt to lower CO2 levels. a brief discussion would have pointed out just how insane the attempt was, but the scientist in question received funding just by asking around. THe only reason we're not in a soylent green scenario now is the ocean is a very big place.
But you see this kind of behavior in arguments on any subject be it science or politics. We need to find a way around this. Although I'm not sure that's even possible. It's really hard to break through someone's entrenched opinions.
To your implication, I do not think it is possible. Assessing data and isolating pertinent facts is a learned skill. Most engineering and scientific degree programs spend a lot time simply teaching students how to solve problems through rigorous methods. The average person does not have this training. Expecting the average person to identify, isolate and remove their emotional and confirmation bias before approaching a problem would be like expecting the average engineering student to be good at arc welding. If a person has not been trained in a skill and/or has not practiced it, we cannot reasonable expect them to be good at it, regardless of the person or skill in question.
I believe (though probably cannot easily substantiate) that the issue only gets worse due to our own opinion of our opinions. I feel people view their opinions as an extension of themselves; attempting to show that an opinion is unsupported by fact becomes equivalent to attack the holder of the opinion. This is in contrast to my arc welding example above. A college student may not like being told that their arc weld is poor, but I believe most would realize that in describing the weld as poor we are not personal attacking them. As the opinion holder comes to feel that they are being attacked, they will defend themselves and become futher entrenched in their opinion.
While training everyone in standard problem solving techniques might solve the problem, this is no more likely than teaching everyone to arc weld.
I am an engineering professional who has worked in manufacturing environments for over 25 years. I have been involved in numerous efforts to engage manufacturing line workers in problem identification and resolution efforts. It is often extremely difficult for them. They are not 'dumb' people, many are quite bright. But while we, as scientists and engineers, have been practicing solving problems for years - they have been practicing various manufacturing skills for years. We can no more impart our problem solving experience to them in a week than they can impart their manufacturing skills to us in a week.
You raise some great points, Andrew. I know that my opinion and reaction to an argument is really dependent on how it is presented to me. If it starts out as an attack or a percieved attack, I'm very likely to get defensive and not really care what your rationale is on the topic.
I also think a lot of people respond defensively to arguments that they don't truly understand.
There's definitely some more research that needs to be done here on conflict resolution. Scientists sometimes have a very hard time conveying meaning and importance. Do you think that's more to do with the ability of the public to interpret the message or is it in our inability to speak in a way that relates to them?
My opinion again, likely both poor communication and lack of foundational knowledge play into it. But I strongly suspect it is a thrid thing. I am trying to recall the reference and it escapes me, but the phrase is, "Each of us speaks from his own pain." When I hear most people argue an opinion, they are not arguing on fact, but arguing on how they wish things were. It's an easy trap. Part of the training that engineers and scientists go through addresses that our wants, hopes and dreams do not trump fact. I must acknowledge that as pragmatic as I am, I catch myself drifting into that territory from time to time. This is especially true if the argument concerns something that affects me or those close to me.
Using the article's example of the National Bio- and Agro- Defense Facility - it is easier to analytically weigh the pros and cons of a particular build site for such a project when the proposed build site is not across the street from my home. As long as it is in someone else's backyard it's just a numerical risk assessment vs. gain assessment.
In turn, I doubt the federal government is holding nationwide discussion on the NBADF; I am betting that the community discussions are being held in the six target locations. The people that come to those meetings have more of a personal stake than the rest of us. Their personal stake does not change the facts. But it likely makes it more difficult for the local population to focus on those facts.
I also wanted to add that problems spring up around any argument that weighs abstract people against concrete people.
Consider the hypothetical situation of having a 1000 convicted murderers in a room - all up for parole. Knowing the recidivism rates for murderers, we can say that if we parole all 1000 of these murderers, then, on average, while most will never hurt anyone again, a few will. So, a few of these murderers will murder again (on average) and X innocent people will die (let's just say 5 for example, I do not know the rates.)
Those 5, unknown victims are very abstract. With a large enough sampling of murderers, the strong law of large numbers demands that 5 people will be killed per 1000 (again, made up number). But, as abstract victims, they do not carry as much weight as the 1000 real humans in front of us and up for parole.
If we tried to argue that we should not release these 1000 convicts because their parole would lead to the murder of 5 people, we will get a lot of push back.
But, if we could look ahead into time and identify who those 5 victims would be... Then our argument becomes if you parole these 1000 convicts your action will explicitly bring about the murders of the 3 children Tom, Jane and Nancy Smith and their 38 year old mother Sue; as well as the murder of Bill Jones in an unrelated incident. Not only do I believe that fewer would argue for the convicts release, I am willing to bet there would be a lot of people suddenly switching sides and saying the convicts should remain incarcerated.
To most people, the 13,000 people we lose in the US each year to drunk driving are not 'real'. This is one of the biggest obstacles in these types of debates. To those of us with a strong math background, those people are very real, even if we do not specifically know their names yet.
One way to maybe break through this is to force each group to defend first their side of the argument, then the other. We had to do this back in middle school for some class, and if you take it seriously enough, you start to see the merits of the other argument.
Also, as a Wolfpack graduate, I'm proud to see an article from NC State on here
Human beings evolved from irrational, emotional creatures. Our rationality is vastly over-rated, even in scientists and engineers. When politics and the legal system get involved, rationality flies out the window entirely.
Science is not a voting consensus. Often it is the minority opinion that finally wins out, sometimes taking generations for popular paradigms to change. Neither is it relevant scientifically what opinions members of the general public hold on a scientific or technological issue.
Today sees the publication of the report of an independent review of the contentious use of metrics — numerical indicators of performance — in the assessment of UK research and researchers. Can it plot a sensible course in a world increasingly obsessed with numbers?
The university’s ruling council will release a statement today, although the scientist will not be reinstated, provost Michael Arthur has said
Shutting other people up when you’re powerful but frightened isn’t defending academic freedom. It’s repressing itTwo weeks ago, a Nobel Laureate made some ill-advised remarks in front of the World Conference of Science Journalism.Whether or not these were intended as a joke is irrelevant at this stage; the remarks were made, people got offended, and the rest is history. Sir Tim Hunt offered his resignation from an honorary position (with no responsibilities and no salary) at University College London, and it was accepted. Again, whether he was pushed or whether he jumped is today of little concern. Continue reading...
In the wake of #Huntgate, here is a handy list of actions that individuals could commit to if they really want to see a change in the working environment coupled with a genuine move towards equality
Until women are given more of a voice and power in traditional organisations, calling out sexism on social media often remains our only recourse
Today I was thrilled to be announced as the recipient of this year’s Royal Academy of Engineering Rooke Award, but I’m concerned that engineering in general is hiding in plain sight
With the announcement of Tim Hunt’s resignation from UCL comes an opportunity to reflect on the women in science who were part of his success
Female scientsts take to Twitter to respond to the Nobel laureate’s comments about women crying in labs Female scientists have taken to Twitter to mock Tim Hunt’s suggestion that science would benefit from “single-sex labs” by posting pictures of themselves at work using the #distractinglysexy hashtag.
The Nobel prizewinner’s ‘trouble with girls’ comments are toxic as well as nonsense – discrimination in science is endemic
Tim Hunt complained that female scientists "cry" and make male colleagues fall in love with them