Fact-resistant humans are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life

Andy Borowitz reports that "Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life."

Brilliant.

Actually, we DO understand the psychology of this phenomenon.  We know that human cognition which includes storytelling and logical thinking did not evolve to discern TRUTH but simply to enhance the probability of survival and reproductive success.  Right?  We are exquisitely tuned to detect inauthentic or flawed STORIES, not whether or not the stories are based on or contradict hard evidence.  On the contrary, to conserve energy under severe cognitive load, we basically delegate reasoning from evidence and first principles — which is HARD — to much more subconscious heuristics that are predisposed to select those stories framed to confirm existing beliefs and to filter out those stories which contradict them.  It’s called ‘confirmation bias.'

Borowitz is right:  shocks required to break through confirmation bias could include hunger, thirst or even respiration.

Reason, Truth, Lies, Empiricism and Belief in the Age of the Internet

In the March issue of The New Yorker Jill Lepore posted an amusing rant on reason, truth, lies, empiricism and belief in the "Age of the Internet."

She asks a good question:  How do we know?  And what is the role of evidence?  Reason?

Lepore observes in this season dominated by the Republican debates and largely negative advertising based almost exclusively on unsubstantiated opinion and belief:

1. "Tump doesn’t reason... He wants combat." 
2. "Cruz’s appeal is to the judgment of God. 'Father God, please . . . awaken the body of Christ, that we might pull back from the abyss,' he preached on the campaign trail."
3. "Rubio’s appeal is to Google."

The Challenge of Science and Civic Engagement

Many of the most complex and serious issues facing society today have significant technical and scientific dimensions: how to manage climate change, public health, loss of biodiversity, and dwindling natural resources, to name a few. These are not just technical or scientific issues, however. These are fundamentally social, political and economic problems with substantial ethical, moral and cultural dimensions.  Answers to these challenges require judgment, values and priorities in addition to empirical observation, experimental evidence, quantitative models and methods.

But no matter how you look at it, despite their utility in policy-making, the "hard sciences" are not always applied.  But why?  Although this is complicated and, for sure, there are many other factors, it's pretty safe to simply observe that, at the moment, scientists and their work are somewhat isolated from popular culture and the domain of policy decision-making.

Cockburn Publishes Attack on Greenhouse Warming Theory

Alexander Cockburn published a story on Counterpunch today called "Is Global Warming a Sin?" attacking the theory of global warming. Initially the argument seemed somewhat personal and political but also cogent and founded on legitimate data and observations. However, after rereading it and looking for criticism -- especially of the arguments he raised that seemed original and missing from the mainstream debate -- cracks in his argument started to appear. And the closer I looked the more I realized that it's pretty sophisticated politically but really inadequate with respect to what I am beginning to expect of science journalism.

Despite the weaknesses of article, however, it is a great opportunity to understand the anatomy of a cultural and political attack on science itself.

Approval from Department of Commerce Required for Science Communications

The Union of Concerned Scientists has published a very simple review of new Department of Commerce policies regarding the communication of science to the public and has provided links to letters written in protest of these polices and the policy itself.

These are remarkable documents. On the surface, they appear to guarantee the "open dissemination of research results." However, upon closer examination it’s quite clear that scientists are actually required to seek approval from the Department of Commerce for any scientific communication.

How Exxon Spent $15 Million to Create Confusion and Dissent in Global Warming Debate

The Union of Concerned Scientists has published an powerful and compelling report on exactly how Exxon spent $15 Million with dozens of shady organizations appearing to produce legitimate science and policy reports in order to discredit the real science behind global warming. It’s 60-some pages but really impressive in its attention to detail.

Most of the report is focused on the elaborate web of organizations, associations, think-tanks and consultancies Exxon has funded to create the impression that there is a large, heterogeneous group of informed scientists who disagree on the basic facts and theory of anthropogenic climate change.  They have documented a deliberate attempt to manufacture a controversy in science when, in fact, there is none.

TOS Education and Public Outreach Guide

The Oceanography Society has published a very useful guide to public outreach written specifically for scientists.  It agrees in principle with most of my own findings and might be a very valuable resource.

You can check out their site at http://www.tos.org and the guide is found here:  http://www.tos.org/epo_guide/index.html.

TOS Education and Public Outreach Guide

The Oceanography Society has published a very useful guide to public outreach written specifically for scientists.  It agrees in principle with most of my own findings and might be a very valuable resource.  Check out their site and their guide.

Some interesting websites on Science and Society

Report from the House of Lords Committee on Science and Technology.  An excellent assessment of the situation, analysis of root causes and recommendations for the future.  Published in 2000.

An interesting site by Bonnie Bucqueroux, who blogs about current threats and how we can respond at the personal and policy levels.  Great use of video and YouTube.

 There are dozens of Yahoo! Groups organized around energy issues.   Is it better to start a new group or join some other ones?  Or perhaps both?

Warning or Alarm

 NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

The debate over Global Warming is a perfect example of how the integrity of scientific evidence and the credibility of science itself has been compromised in a highly divisive and partisan debate over policy.  The most visible proponents of each side present themselves as experts, present their own facts and ignore or undermine the facts of their adversaries.  Common ground based on accepted scientific evidence and practices disappears along with deliberative, public dialog.  Positions harden.  Real uncertainty and risk remain but disappear from view.  Subtleties are lost.  The public struggles to follow the debate and is mystified, confused.

Advocates on each side focus on short term benefits and political results.  Longer term education -- and a deeper public understanding of the issues -- is compromised.  When the public hears experts disagree they loose confidence in both sides.  Science and technology as a whole are diminished.

Debate of the the Nuclear Industry in the 1970's and 80's was another perfect case with similar consequences for science and technology.  The history of CFC damage to the ozone layer is another more recent example.  It is particularly tragic because now that we know that the alarm was real, that the intervention worked and that it was commercially very successful, the issue has passed from public view and science has missed the opportunity to regain lost ground.

Along the same lines many lessons have been learned from the disastrous limits to growth debate.  Yet in part because of the evidence collected in the process there is tremendous support for environmental protection, conservation and smaller family sizes throughout the industrialized world.  But the role played by scientists (not activists) in this global social movements and their contribution to what is now called sustainable development is still not universally acknowledged.

Lots of work has been done under the heading of Science, Technology and Society (STS) and the Public Understanding of Science as well.  One example of a comprehensive study is The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Their |third report contains tremendous analysis of the tension between science, technology and society as well as what we can do about it.  (John Durant of the MIT Museum was somehow involved although I am unclear on his official role).

The Challenge of Science and Civic Engagement

Many of the most complex and serious issues facing society today have significant technical and scientific dimensions: how to manage climate change, public health, loss of biodiversity, and dwindling natural resources, to name a few. These are not just technical or scientific issues, however.  These are fundamentally social, political and economic problems with substantial ethical, moral and cultural dimensions.  Answers to these challenges require judgment, values and priorities in addition to empirical observation, experimental evidence, quantitative models and methods.

Small Groups Needed to Solve Problems in Science and Society

Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

But where are these small groups of thoughtful, committed citizens confronting the really large problems facing science and society in the 21st Century: climate change, loss of biodiversity, diminished natural resources and the challenges of sustainable development in a shrinking, hungry planet, to name a few?

Although such small groups are constantly forming around us, and many of them are fully engaged on parts of the puzzle, somehow, with respect to these systemic problems as a whole, they fail to coalesce, gain traction and drive change.  Why?

John Durant and MIT's Science, Technology and Society Program

I met Dr. John Durant, Adjunct Professor in MIT’s “Science, Technology and Society” program (or STS) and Director of The MIT Museum.  He delivered a paper and led a colloquium entitled “What Role for STS?” on Monday the 16th of October, 2006.

This was a perfect event to attend.  I was very interested myself in seeing what role they thought such a group or program should have within an institution like MIT.  In the process I hoped to pick up a bit of history of the field, some important terminology, names, titles and even what you might call, the “Big Questions” in the field.

Richard Nelson and Moose in Alaska on NPR

I just listened to this super piece on NPR by Richard Nelson about moose in Alaska.  I was on a bagels run so I missed the beginning.  But I stayed in the car for about 5 minutes after I got home so I could hear the end of it.  It was a classic NPR moment: I was transported by radio from our driveway in New England to someplace in Alaska.

Meeting Alan Templeton at Wash U

I met Alan Templeton on Sunday at my father’s birthday party.  He is the Charles Rebstock Professor of Biology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo.  We had an interesting discussion about his work and my interests in Science and Society despite the short time and my urge to follow a number of really, really interesting tangents.

Most of our conversation was concentrated on his work with collared lizards in the Ozark Mountains of Missouri.  Apart from being very cute, these lizards are interesting because, together with several other rare species of plants and animals, they live in a cool and rare habitat in the high Ozark Plateau called a ‘glade habitat.’  Although I am not sure I really understand what it is, it sounds a bit like islands of isolated desert with thin, poor topsoil, exposed rock, grasses, and some shrubs separated by dense hardwood forests with thick undergrowth. It seems that this glade habitat is shrinking, a series of isolated and geographically discontinuous, small islands where both plants and animals loose genetic diversity and face extinction.  Wildfires played an important role in maintaining this habitat historically:  the “islands” were larger, connected by migration corridors and surrounded by a savannah landscape, much more open than the Ozarks we see today.

Of course, I asked him my question:  “How do you know?”