I learned something from the comments on my preventive stupidity post (also here). The best comment was from Kim Oyhus, whose earlier comment had started it all. Were I to discuss the subject from scratch, here’s what I’d add (mostly elaborating what Kim said):
Scientific discussions are usually about data and theory. From Data A, someone has “concluded” — more precisely, raised the plausibility of — Theory X. At this point, preventive stupidity often begins: Someone says “correlation doesn’t equal causation” or “the plural of anecdote is not data” or something similar.
Here’s what I think. More data are better. Two data sets are better than one. To go from one data set (A) to two (A and B) is a step forward. Less data are worse. To go from one data set (A) to none is a step backward. If you respond to the assertion that A supports X by mentioning more data that bears on the truth of X, that’s a step forward. The more convincing the new data (in either direction, pro or con), the bigger the improvement.
Likewise, more ideas are better. Two plausible explanations of A are better than one. To go from one idea (X) to two (X and Y) is a step forward. Fewer ideas are worse. To go from one explanation (X) to none is a step backward. If you respond to the assertion that A supports X by mentioning another plausible explanation of A, that’s a step forward. The more plausible the new explanation, the bigger the step forward.
The sayings I wrote about (e.g., “absence of evidence doesn’t equal evidence of absence”) make their users stupider because they push them from thinking about one data set to thinking about none (they dismiss Data A) or from considering one idea to considering none (they dismiss Theory X). They make the rest of us stupider because they prevent their users from making useful contributions. They really are preventive stupidity, as Orwell said.
If these sayings were used as transitions, as throat-clearing, fine. If somebody wrote, “Look, correlation doesn’t equal causation. Here’s another plausible explanation for what you observed . . . ” that would be okay. In my experience, that’s not what happens. They’re used to support an overall dismissiveness. Several months ago I wrote about my observations that connected socks with foot fungus. Some of the comments provided new relevant data — steps forward. A few comments, however, made this or that preventive-stupidity point (“ Sample size of 1, no control . . . . you can’t seriously think you’ve proved anything here“, “ your post is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning“). The comments didn’t go on to make a step forward. They were steps backward.
I’ve always enjoyed sharing your ideas with other people. I do like to try your ideas. I bought some Straus butter again. I don’t know if the other light affected my sleep, because my moods were strange when I used it. My sleeping was erratic, so I added fluorescent lights again.
@Seth
Came across this essay regarding anthropogenic global warming. I thought you might find it interesting.
https://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/climate.html
To get some idea of how destructive this campaign is, consider a short history.
Back in the ’80s and ’90s, some people noticed that their children were being injected with increasing amounts of a mercury-based toxin, thiomersal (“Thimerosal”). Vaccination defenders correctly pointed out that there was no evidence of any harmful effects from injecting any amount of thiomersal into children. This was correct because, in fact, there was no evidence of any kind: no tests had been done with thiomersal. It was grandfathered in at the FDA’s inception. All that was known was that if thiomersal did have an effect, it wasn’t especially obvious, because it had been used for a long time, although never in amounts nearly as large as was lately being done.
These assurances, being transparent deceptions, only increased suspicion. Later, as limited studies were finally completed, the results were routinely inflated far beyond the authors’ conclusions, further inflaming suspicions. Today, having run the experiment to completion directly on the public, we can say with fair confidence now that thiomersal was not, by itself, causing autism. We don’t know if it caused other problems; each possible effect would need to be checked individually, but most haven’t. It’s all considered moot now, since as of about 2002 children’s vaccines in the U.S. haven’t had it. (This is, by the way, a few years later than had been misleadingly announced.) The damage, though, is done. A big swath of the population has become irredeemably distrustful of the vaccine industry administration, and vaccination rates have declined dangerously.
The only answer those parents had, when being so hamhandedly misled by denials, was “absence of evidence of harm is not the same as evidence of absence of harm”. To have evidence, you must collect evidence, and none had been collected. The administration fought such collection tooth and nail. Without evidence, there was no bad news; with evidence, who knew? There might be lawsuits; there was heavy litigation over asbestos. Bad news would lead to declines in vaccination rates, which would certainly be harmful too.
You might be tempted to say the administration turned out to be right, and the parents wrong, but that would be dishonest. The parents were right to be suspicious under the circumstances, because absence of evidence really isn’t evidence of absence. Real evidence of absence of harm is what parents reasonably expect before allowing you to injecting toxins into their children. It didn’t exist. Lack of evidence is no substitute.
We’re still living with the tragic consequences, in reduced vaccination rates and increased incidence of preventable illnesses, of public officials trying to pass off lack of evidence as if it were itself evidence.
Nathan,
We as autism parents were not only suspicious in the past, we will continue to be suspicious in the future. We’re suspicious of nearly anything we hear coming out of the culture that bred what you described as the vaccination administration.
I include in that culture general health advice, and global warming advocacy smells the same to me.
I don’t know of any evidence that the dysfunctional groups in the science community that are setting public policy and media narratives have changed any.
Your comment summarized my feelings on the subject articulately.
Darrin: I am an autism parent myself, and quite aware of structural impediments to sound public health policy. Still, everything I have studied carefully indicates that climate scientists are both careful and sincere, and that global-warming denialists are not. I don’t doubt that some are sincere, but that’s not enough for me.
> Still, everything I have studied carefully indicates that climate scientists are both careful and sincere, and that global-warming denialists are not.
For me, that was one of the big revelations of the climategate emails – that people like Michael Mann really believe the goofy things they say – they aren’t being deliberate propagandists. I’m now pretty sure everybody in this debate is sincere. The real question is whether people on one side or the other or both are deluded to believe the things they sincerely do believe.
It seems to me there’s a lot of carelessness on both sides. On both sides the people who are the most careful aren’t the ones who do the most talking or get the most press.
I’m perfectly certain that many in the debate are not sincere. However, that is far from saying everyone on the one side is insincere, or that everyone on the other side is as careful as I would like. Unsound reasoning is so pervasive in our culture that it’s often hard to tell outright lying from expressions of self-deception. People who fear change will use unsound reasoning to conjure up reasons to justify resisting change, in the face of any amount of evidence.
> People who fear change will use unsound reasoning to conjure up reasons to justify resisting change, in the face of any amount of evidence.
That framing might be more ambiguous than you intended. I don’t think I agree that that’s the true nature of the primary dynamic in this debate but if it were, it might make sense to apply that idea to “people who fear change” in the average world temperature, people who fear change in the atmospheric CO2 level, people who fear change in the average sea level, people who fear change in glacier coverage, and so on.
Having done that – having described one side as applying unsound reasoning because they fear the possibility of environmental change and are going to great lengths to justify resisting said change, you could then describe the opposing side as simply “those who don’t fear change”. Or at least don’t fear it enough to justify extreme measures resisting it.
Or perhaps just fear change less than the other guys.
The word you’re looking for there isn’t “change”, but “worldwide famine, mass extinction, hundreds of millions displaced”. It’s rational to do what you can to avoid those, but it would involve some changes in economic flows.
No, using your framing it would be the fact that people fear environmental change – and possibly technological progress in general – that leads them to invent and preach ridiculous apocalyptic scenarios like those you list. The doomsday scenarios are part of what you called “unsound reasoning” above. You just “conjured up” three alleged reasons to keep doing what you’re doing – to keep the same worldview and fight for the same policies and demonize the same people as before, rather than accept the world as it is.
Because I don’t intensely fear environmental change – don’t regard the environment as particularly fragile, I don’t feel the need to invent disaster scenarios that I can then claim to rescue the world from, if only people everywhere will join my faith, fear the same things I do, and follow all the policies advocated by the priest class of my chosen religion.
BTW, the earlier-linked Jonathan Katz essay is pretty good.
Not even Exxon still denies that all of the above will occur in this century. Their story now is that it’s not their fault, and that switching to other energy sources won’t make any difference. Their motivation for saying so is obvious.
The dishonesty and sloppiness is overwhelmingly on one side.
Okay, I guess I’ll bite: What combination of assumptions leads to the joint conclusion that: (a) we’ll have “worldwide famine” due to AGW in this century, and (b) …but this is preventable by switching to other energy sources?
My guess is that you might be able to get there by assuming a “steady state” with regard to farm locations, crops, and farming technologies – assuming that those somehow can’t or won’t gradually change over time in response to changing climate as they always have in past centuries, also assuming a “steady state” with regard to economic activity – meaning that it won’t hurt productivity at all to switch to less polluting technologies, yet NOT assuming a “steady state” with regard to energy technologies or political policies so we can hypothesize changing those willy-nilly to whatever The Regulators think is best.
But I’d like to see it spelled out: what assumptions are being made and what is the evidence for those assumptions actually being true?
Is there actual science behind this? Or are you just talking about the IPCC’s speculations on drought and famine in Africa such as discussed here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231386/African-crops-yield-another-catastrophe-for-the-IPCC.html
https://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/27/more-ipcc-advocacy-not-science-africa/