12 December 2017
Consensus Matters- The Research Says So!
Posted by Dan Satterfield
Those of us in science communication can be forgiven for thinking that everyone knows that agreement among scientists on climate change is extremely high. (It’s around 97-99% and the 1-3% who disagree have substantially less experience/publications in the field than the consensus group.)
The Hard Truth
The hard reality though is that most Americans have no idea the consensus is that strong and it makes one think that if we could just get that message out, that people would take the threat more seriously. I’ve often replied to the “it’s a hoax/fraud etc.” emails and social media posts with a snarky reply of my own: “What do you know that every major scientific body on Earth doesn’t?” I’m under no illusions that this will change the mind of the sender since they are likely stating a political belief rather than something based on science (see gateway beliefs). The response is intended for the audience who may not have paid any attention to the subject and really has no idea what they think about it. (In other words, never argue with crazy, unless there’s an audience!)
Mistake or Not
Previous research indicated that the higher the education level of skeptics the more hardened their opinion. Thus, educating folks on the science would not really do much good, and telling people that 98% of experts in the field were in agreement would make little difference. I always suspected this is not true and it turns out that I was right.
My friend Ed Maibach usually tells me my ideas on public perception of science are wrong and has the data to back it up, so when he sent me this press release about their new research at the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication I was intrigued!
Read the summary for yourself below:
(My highlighting below)
“In other words, we found that communicating a simple fact about the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change did not reinforce political polarization. Quite the opposite: communicating the scientific consensus helped neutralize partisan motivated reasoning and bridge the conservative-liberal divide, at least on this key fact. These findings proved robust across ideology and education levels and build on our prior work illustrating that perceived scientific consensus acts as a “gateway” to other key beliefs about climate change (Ding et al., 2011; van der Linden et al., 2015). The article is available here to those with a subscription to Nature Human Behaviour. If you would like to request a copy, please send an email to [email protected], with the Subject Line: Request Scientific Agreement Paper. |
My takeaway is that we need to mention the overwhelming consensus constantly. I am reminded of two excellent books that are relevant here by Tom Nichols and Joe Romm. Must reads.
What exactly is the scientific consensus on climate change, you don’t define it in your article. I see many options, only one is actually important:
1. Climate change is real.
2. Climate change is real and man contributes to it.
3. Climate change is real and man is solely responsible for it.
4. Climate change is real and man is solely responsible for it and there will be catastrophic consequences.
5. Climate change is real and man is solely responsible for it and there will be catastrophic consequences and there’s something we can do about it.
6. Climate change is real and man is solely responsible for it and there will be catastrophic consequences and there’s something we can do about it and the cure isn’t worse than the disease.
If it isn’t the last one (and it isn’t) then I really don’t care about a consensus which despite your protestations is not how science should be conducted anyhow.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” – Galileo Galilei
And the answer is that all 6 are true and every major science body on the planet has agreed along with around 97-99% of scientist in that field. Could they all be wrong? Yes. The odds are infinitesimally small though, and while some like to point out the very few times that the majority was wrong, they ignore all of those times when the expert was right.
Short summary- If you want to declare every science body on Earth wrong, you’d better have some clear, solid evidence. If you have no background in the field, then most are going to assume your belief is based on a gateway political belief, and not science.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence- Sagan.
He is not declaring every science body wrong. Straw man. Also, you are questioning his motivations as political instead of addressing his arguments. Ad hominem. Two classic logical fallacies. This does not help your case. Here are some questions for you:
1) Is science about inquiry and being a marketplace of ideas or is it 5 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner?
2) Is every scientist who questions the prevailing views disreputable and incompetent?
3) Would the NSF be more likely to fund research that parrots the prevailing view or research that provides different findings?
4) Could this bias the findings of academics in the publish or perish trap who are being peer reviewed by 3 wolves?
5) Bay of Pigs and Challenger were consensus decisions. Would you classify those groups as homogeneous or heterogeneous in terms of background, expertise, motivations, etc.? I highly recommend reading The Wisdom of Crowds for examples of when consensus opinions are more likely to be accurate.
I have no gateway political beliefs. Both parties are fatally flawed. I am not a climatologist either. I don’t dispute any of your claims because I simply don’t know enough. I am a scientist, however, and have heard well reasoned arguments on both sides of the issue. Ask yourself if you are immune to any sort of bias or if it’s possible that every one of us might sometimes overestimate what we know (there’s a great paper on the subject called “Unskilled and Unaware”). Are you ever challenging your own beliefs with a healthy dose of skepticism?
Thanks for your time. I enjoy your blog.
TJ
My reply:
So the consensus is not trustworthy because science is not perfect?
Answer to some of the questions.
1. Neither
2. No, not at all. I think that is a strawman though. Never made that claim or would.
3. Likely yes if they had evidence to back it up. You get famous in science by disproving a popular theory.
4. The answer to 3 negates this.
5. Read the book actually. Read unskilled and unaware as well. Thanks for mentioning them, they deserve attention!
I recc. reading Tom Nichol’s book The Death of Expertise.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I appreciate the discussion!
I’m not saying consensus is untrustworthy. I am saying consensus is imperfect just as the science is imperfect.
Following up our discussion points…
1)How would you define science then? Does majority = truth?
2) I was nearly certain you’d answer the way you did, but wanted to make absolutely sure. I disagree that this is a strawman, though. I asked a question without accusing you of anything and gave you the opportunity to state your position. That is different from leading off with something presumptive like “If you want to declare…”. Furthermore, we both know that your concession here does not invalidate your argument. It merely makes the point that there are very smart and qualified people on both sides of the debate.
3) Like you, I believe scientific truth prevails. But it certainly can be resisted. Here is a not so hypothetical situation: a researcher has spent 20 years of his professional career on research that may now be invalidated by a new discovery. He has been funded by grants for most of those 20 years. He is highly influential among his peers and a fixture in the review process. Scientists are people. People are capable of being territorial and closed-minded. Is it therefore *possible* this researcher might behave this way too? People are also known
to follow the money. Is it possible that some researchers might do this too by keeping tabs on past funding trends? Is it possible that those who confer grants might be loathe to admit they had been backing the wrong horse all those years?
4) To your point, we have to discuss 3 further before we address this.
5) Glad you read those things, but you didn’t answer my question. I ask about group homogeneity because the peer review process intentionally seeks out people with the same background. This increases the risk for blind spots, confirmation bias, consensus bias, etc. I will also add that academia, like NASA, the CIA, etc., is extremely hierarchical, making open discourse of new ideas difficult. Recall from Wisdom of Crowds that the best consensus decisions resulted from a variety of backgrounds and no “face threat”.
I will check out that book, thanks for the recommend! I should also check out Demon Haunted World per your other post. Ever read The Black Swan by Taleb or The Signal and the Noise by Silver?
Peace,
TJ