Dr. Forbush Thinks

Science is about observation. A scientist asks questions, observes and tries to answer those questions. Actually we all do this to some extent, but a scientist does this in a very careful way. I’m not saying that we don’t try to be careful in other aspects of our lives, but it is easy for us to be confused with the simplest things.

For example, your Aunt Sally might have gotten sick. She might have gotten sick the day after she went skiing, and it might be easy to come to the conclusion that skiing caused the sickness. This would be a flawed conclusion, because we are disregarding all of the other people who went skiing on the same day and did not get sick. This is called anecdotal evidence. We have seen this anecdotal evidence asserted every day in every way. In fact, advertisers use anecdotal evidence to persuade to buy their products all the time. Someone gets in front of the camera and tells you that ever since they started using X they feel Y. This guy in front of the camera may be the only guy on the planet that the product has ever effected in this way, but the advertisers don’t tell you that.

If you think that advertisers are bad about using anecdotal evidence in an effort to persuade you, then consider that the FCC actually regulates what they are allowed to say in their pitches. However, politicians, religious leaders and many other people are not obligated to support their claims in this same way. Politicians are not required to support their claims, simply because it is assumed that the opposition to the politicians has it in their interest to debunk at least the most fantastic claims made. Religious leaders don’t need to support their claims either, simply because religious leaders are protected by the first amendment right to protection. Therefore, in a religious context religious leaders can say just about anything that they would like to say and claim whatever supporting evidence that they would like to proclaim.

Now, most American religious leaders and American politicians are mainstream and the public is protected from outrageous claims simply by American culture. When one of these people make an outrageous claim members who hear the claim come to a conclusion that the guy must be a little bit “whacked out.” The buzz from the statement has little or no support from the evidence, just like the outrageous statement itself. There is no valid measurement that can be used to weigh either of these statements unless it can be proven that one of the statements violates some observed fact. And, this is a major problem, because observed facts and publicly understood facts are not always the same. Politicians, religious leaders and con artists are among the people that use these “publicly understood facts” to get what they want.

So, when people intentionally alter one’s perceptions what is one to believe? How can one defend one’s self from outrageous claims. As for religion, one is asked to suspend all disbelief and puts one’s faith in the unknown and the unknowable. As for politics, there are often many ways to look at a problem and there are many possible solutions to the problem. The problem is that politicians know that it is virtually impossible to treat everyone “fairly” in a world where the definition of “fairness” is a legally alterable term. In other words, one can change laws so that the majority of supporters believe that they are being treated fairly. Or, in another attempt to be even more clear: If a candidate can persuade enough people that he will give them the best deal, then they can be elected over and over again even if the minority is being treated unfairly in real terms when “fairness” is defined by the laws that they make. These two groups don’t fall far from the con artists who use slight of hand to convince the unsuspecting of an altered form of reality.

Only true measurements based on reality can compete with the desire to alter how people see the world.

But, even our measurements can be corrupted if we are not careful about how we define measurements or understand the error on those measurements. For example, polls make very good measurements of how elections might turn out, if one conducts a carefully randomized sample of likely voters. But if we were to poll the American public on whom the 23rd American President was, chances are that the results might not give us an answer worthy of the paper it was written on. Of course, this fact can not be reliably gathered by polling, unless the sample of the poll was limited 19th century American History teachers. This is why we value experts in particular fields. But, even experts do not always agree on every aspect of the area of their expertise.

Now, imagine a fictional episode where Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly gets on his talk show and tells a story about the 23rd American President, Benjamin Harrison. Of course, the story is a bit skewed to illustrate their personal political point of view. Some pieces may be left out and other points might be exaggerated, all in the effort to make an “important” political point. A large fraction of the listeners to the program never knew that Ben, was the 23rd President before the story went out to the public. But, now listeners suddenly believe that they are experts at least on this story. They have begun calling him Ben, like he’s an old college buddy and suddenly Ben has become part of the American culture in such a way that disagreeing with the story creates an atmosphere of rancor as if you were saying that Thomas Jefferson was the first president.

This imaginary episode has played out over and over among those who have been trying to mold the American culture into a more conservative light. And, in recent years some liberal radio personalities have been trying to push back with their own versions of this alternate universe. The problem is that these attempts to put forth alternative visions and perspectives alter the way Americans see the world. In fact, it changes the body of knowledge that we call American culture, the things that Americans understand as the facts, even if they aren’t the truth. And, unlike science, we do not have a reliable way to measure the facts. It always comes down to a battle between the opinions of the American people, no matter how poorly those opinions are distorted by those who play fast and loose with the facts, as if anyone really has a way to measure what those facts are.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics