Matt Burgess, a prof at CU in Boulder, wrote a guest post on Lee Jussim’s Unsafe Science Substack that might be of interest. You also might be interested in Matt’s “How polarization will destroy itself”
The title is “Both sides should separate misinformation from reasoned debate about climate change policy.” His bottom line is:
Stick to Facts
Progressives turn people off by dismissing reasoned criticism of climate policies as “denial” or “fossil-fuel misinformation”. Conservatives make it too easy to dismiss their reasoned criticisms of climate policies as climate change denial, when they also amplify actual climate change denial uncritically. Both sides would have the best chance of persuading people if they rigorously seek out and then stick to the facts, and jettison both pseudoscience and ad-hominem attacks.1
I think that many “facts” are in more dispute than Matt does, but that’s not necessarily a problem. We don’t seem to have difficulties discussing the nuances here at TSW.
My favorite part was this footnote:
Lee here. While I generally endorse Matt’s emphasis on sticking to facts and avoiding ad hominem, this final sentence is actually an empirical question. Do facts persuade people more than ad hominem attacks? I do not know. Also, persuade people of what? There is the truth of the claim, the integrity and decency of the claimant versus accuser, trust and credibility afforded to academia and experts, and more. The effectiveness of ad hominem for persuading people of different things might itself vary depending on the outcome. Secondarily, avoiding pseudoscience and misinformation is not that easy. Although some things are clearly pseudoscience (e.g., astrology) and others science (e.g., astronomy), there is no hard, clear line between pseudoscience and science, and misinformation is little more than being wrong — and people are wildly overconfident about wrong beliefs all the time. Avoiding misinformation in science and politics often means doing a deep dive into source credibility, references, and alternative sources or reporting, and most of us don’t usually have time for all that. And if you don’t, you really are in no position to stick to the facts because you do not have them, in which case, the best approach may be epistemic humility — avoiding making strong claims altogether when you really have neither the expertise nor have done the deep dive necessary to do so.
I’d only add that when you do have the expertise, and have done the deep dive, you can still be humble. It’s really easy to be humble when you’ve worked in many places and seen many things, including the unpredicted and unpredictable.
Dear Sharon,
You seem to want those of us who are scientists to give some sort of equal treatment to the pros and cons of every topic where we have expertise. That may make us seem more humble. But it is far from scientific. The Scientific Method leads us in particular directions and not in others. It is far from a 50/50 proposition.
As Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman explained, we guess what might explain some phenomenon and then test the hypothesis to see if it matches the real world.
The ancients surmised that objects dropped from a great height would fall in proportion to their weight, with heavier objects falling faster. The problem is that they never checked to see if that was true. When the experiment is conducted, the result is that all rocks released at the same time hit the ground at the same time. Am I supposed to still give a nod to the ancients, saying that they might be correct? Of course not. Science has a method for sorting out the viable theories from the incorrect ones.
As an aside, I used to demonstrate to my students that heavier objects will fall faster than lighter ones, where air resistance is important. Two pieces of paper wadded up into a ball will fall approximately twice as fast as one that is wadded up into the same size ball.
This is a simple example of the way science is supposed to be conducted. A theory prompts experiments, leading to a firm conclusion, with exceptions noted. In more complex situations, the answer may not be as straightforward. In that case, I am REQUIRED to tell you what I know that might lead to an alternate explanation.
Ad hominems are never appropriate. But neither is complete civility. If someone persists with nonsense, it is appropriate to call that out. Scientists are not required to be infinitely accommodating to theories that are clearly wrong.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA