Vaccines. Climate change. Big Bang Theory. Evolution. These
are the Big 4 when it comes to controversy in the United States. This begs the
question: why, if there is such widespread consensus among scientists, do
people still reject these ideas? It is not a small faction who reject these
either. According to an AP poll, 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution,
more than half reject the Big Bang theory, 40% do not see humans as the driving
force in climate change, and 15% are against vaccines. Why is there such
widespread rejection of scientific evidence?
Much of it comes down to beliefs; mostly religion and
politics. Why don’t people believe in the Big Bang theory and evolution?
Because it directly contradicts the
Creation story held by the major Abrahamic religions that dominate the United
States. Since religion is taught from birth and most children are not
introduced to science until age 8, there is a very strong paradigm set that
science then has to uproot. Climate change is a heavily politicized issue that
fell along party lines and was discussed, not as a scientific issue, but as an
economic one. The idea that humans are the cause of climate change is extremely
detrimental to many industries (i.e. the oil industry).
Vaccines are a bit trickier. There does not seem to be any
direct correlation between some belief system and vaccine rejection. This comes
down to what is called “confirmation bias” which essentially says that people
are more likely to believe opinions that are congruent with their previously
held views. For example, if someone is already distrustful of science, it makes
them more likely to distrust any further scientific evidence while latching
onto anything that portrays science in a bad light. Or, if they are distrustful
of the government, they will reject governmental studies that prove vaccine
safety and efficacy.
When it comes to mistrust of science, there are 5 common
“hallmark” moves by pseudoscientists:
1.
They say scientific consensus is nothing more
than a conspiracy to suppress dissention.
2.
They produce fake experts to challenge common
scientific knowledge, even though these “experts” have a spotty scientific
background (at best).
3.
They cherry-pick data to both discredit the
current view and propagate their views.
4.
They use “false analogies” or other logical
fallacies.
5.
They set unrealistic expectations of research
that science can never fulfill (i.e. the “missing link”).
In a 2011 poll, 69% of Americans believe that scientists
falsified climate change data. Once there is mistrust that scientists will
create data to promote an agenda, all bets are off and all science is open for
debate. So what are we as scientists supposed to do? I believe we need to
respond to disbelief at its source. Science needs to be depoliticized so that
the argument becomes about science and not about money. Additionally, we need
stronger science education. I remember reading a story about a teacher who was
faced with a student who did not want to do a project because his family did
not believe in global warming. Instead of dismissing the student’s views and
forcing him to do the project, the teacher offered that the student should
build his own theory and support it with evidence. At the end of the project,
the student said that he understood why people believe in global warming, but
that he also believed that there is a better explanation. This led to a view
that I think is key in scientific exploration. Wide-accepted views stand up to
inspection. If somebody has a different idea about something, encourage that
they investigate it. Nobody is required to accept the foremost theory and that
they are only responsible to investigate their own beliefs earnestly.
“Well-accepted theories are well-accepted for a reason: they
stand up to inspection. As long as we encourage and empower students to
earnestly inspect, the proof will take care of itself.”—David Joyner
No comments:
Post a Comment