Reposted by Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on Apr 10th, 2021 by curryja |
by Judith Curry
“Like a magnetic field that balances iron filings, a strong cultural belief aligns multiple sources of scientific prejudice in the same direction. – Political scientist Daniel Sarewitz
The statistician Regina Nuzzo sums up the problem:
“This is the big problem in science that nobody talks about: even an honest person is a master of self-deception. In today’s environment, our talent for jumping to conclusions makes it all too easy to find false patterns in randomness, ignore alternative explanations for an outcome, or accept “reasonable” outcomes without question – that is, incessantly astray to lead without realizing it. ”
The psychologists Richard Simmons et al. Find out that researchers’ bias can have a profound impact on the outcome of a study. These “degrees of freedom for researchers” include choosing which variables to include, which data to include, which comparisons to make, and which analytical methods to use. Each of these options might be reasonable, but when added together, researchers can extract statistical significance or other meaningful information from almost any data set. Researchers who make the decisions necessary to collect and analyze data believe they are making the right, or at least sensible, decisions. However, your bias will affect these decisions in ways that researchers may not be aware of. Additionally, researchers may simply be using the techniques that work – which means they are producing the results they want.
The goal of scientific research is to find out what is really true, not just to test our prejudices. When a community of scholars has different perspectives and different prejudices, the reviews and tradeoffs in the scientific process, including peer review, will ultimately counteract individual prejudices. Sometimes this is true – but often it doesn’t happen quickly or smoothly. Bad data and bad ideas can not only survive, but good ideas can be suppressed.
However, when prejudices caused by motivated thinking and career pressures become entrenched in the institutions that support science – professional societies, scientific journals, universities, and funding agencies – this branch of science can be misled for decades.
Prejudices caused by a consensus building process
Consensus is seen as a proxy for the truth in many scientific discussions. Consensus, formed by the independent and free deliberation of many, is a powerful indicator of the truth. However, a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that the individual is free not to agree to it.
A scientific argument can prematurely develop into a dominant theory if the cultural forces are sufficiently strong and aligned in the same direction. Premature theories, enforced through an explicit consensus-building process, hamper scientific advancement because of the questions that are not asked and the investigations that are not conducted. Nuzzio (2015) calls this “hypothesis myopia”.
If the goal of scientific research is to learn the truth and avoid mistakes, how could a consensus-seeking process introduce a bias in science and increase the likelihood of error?
“Confirmatory bias” is a well-known psychological principle that refers to seeking or interpreting evidence in a way that is part of an existing belief, expectation, or hypothesis. Confirmation bias usually refers to unintentional selectivity in the collection and interpretation of evidence.
The philosopher Thomas Kelly (2005) gives the following insight into confirmation bias. As more and more peers study a particular topic, the proportion of aggregate evidence that consists of higher-order psychological evidence of what other people believe increases and the proportion of aggregate evidence that consists of first-order evidence decreases. Kelly concludes that, over time, this invisible hand process tends to give our previous beliefs about affirmation and non-affirmation some competitive advantage.
Allen et al. (2020) show how dependency, pressure and polarization can force a consensus, making trust in the consensus as an indicator of the truth unreliable. As a result, a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that the individual is free to disagree without repression or reprisals. Similarly, a consensus favoring confirmation of a position becomes almost inevitable and therefore virtually meaningless when strong incentives favor confirmation of a position.
Communication theorist Jean Goodwin argues that after making the consensus claim, scientists involved in the ongoing IPCC process not only had reasons to consider the scientific evidence, but also the potential impact of their statements on their ability to claim the consensus defend.
The consensus-building process of the IPCC probably promotes group thinking. ‘Groupthink’ is a pattern of thinking that is characterized by self-deception, forced approval and conformity with group values. Janis (1972) describes eight symptoms of groupthink:
- Illusion of invulnerability
- collective rationalization
- Believe in the inherent morality
- stereotypical views of outgroups
- direct pressure on those who think differently
- Self-censorship
- Illusion of unanimity
- self-appointed mind guards
Many IPCC consensus advocates – both academics and consensus entrepreneurs – display many, if not all, of these symptoms.
Thomas Gold (1989) discussed the dangers that “herd behavior” poses for scientists and which may lead to an inertia-related persistence of false consensus opinions within the sciences. While herd instinct has value in sociological behavior, it has been a disaster in science – in science, in general, we want diversity. When people all go down the same path together, they tend to rule out other paths and they are not always on the right path.
It is not just the herd instinct in individuals that is of concern. When peer support and moral and financial ramifications are at stake, staying with the herd is the winning policy for the individual. However, it is not the successful policy for the pursuit of science. Mental herding behavior insidiously puts pressure to follow fashion, even if it doesn’t really restrict free thinking. The institutions that support science – financial support, the magazines, judges’ verdicts, invitations to conferences, professional recognition – are all influenced by herd behavior.
The economist William Butos (2015) characterizes the IPCC as a “big player” in science because it has all the characteristics that are characteristic of big players in markets: size in terms of influence, insensitivity to the usual restrictions and discretion in its ability to promote a preferred research direction. This characterization of the IPCC as a “big player” is similar to the characterization of the IPCC as a knowledge monopoly by the economist Richard Tol. The IPCC’s influence on climate science is widespread, allowing it to largely ignore the usual scientific constraints on accepting hypotheses. Professional success in climate science depends more on accepting the IPCC’s pronouncements than on exploring opposing possibilities.
The existence of the IPCC as a “big player” and “knowledge monopoly” on climate change may lead to the premature canonization of the IPCC conclusions. Premature canonization refers to the widespread scientific belief in a wrong or incomplete inference, resulting in suppression masquerading as rejection. Oppression occurs when fear of social sanctions prevents ideas from being investigated or empirical evidence from being presented in scientific or public forums. In science, rejection occurs when an idea has been investigated and the evidence has been found defective. A classic, relatively new case of premature canonization is the scientific identification of the causes of ulcers.
How do these concerns affect the IPCC consensus on man-made climate change? Cognitive prejudices in the context of an institutionalized consensus-building process have probably led to the consensus being increasingly confirmed and even canonized in a self-reinforcing manner. An expanded group of scholars derives their second-hand confidence in the consensus from the institutional authority of the IPCC and the forceful nature in which the consensus is presented. This “invisible hand” marginalizes skeptical perspectives. Exuberant claims by the “big player” take away the motivation to question the consensus, especially when they can expect to be labeled “deniers” for their efforts and their chances of professional recognition and research funding diminishing.
The consensus-building process reinforces personal prejudice and rules out disagreements with either the majority opinion or the opinion of the loudest or most motivated person in the room. One can only speculate about the extent and importance of the prejudices introduced into climate science by the consensus-building process of the IPCC.
4.9
9
voices
Item rating
Like this:
Loading…
Comments are closed.