Why don't people believe in Scientific Studies?

[BootinUp]

Found on mastodon by searching for the hashtag #science.

Jack William Bell
@[e-mail]

Why don't people believe in Scientific Studies? A scientific study…

> Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0038

#HumanCondition #science #psychology #stupid

https://rustedneuron.com/@jackwilliambell/110546132108448224

Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues


NICHOLAS LIGHT HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0003-4703-1026 , PHILIP M. FERNBACH, NATHANIEL RABB HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0002-7283-2549, MUGUR V. GEANA HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0002-1541-4746, AND STEVEN A. SLOMAN HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0001-8223-3788Authors Info & Affiliations

SCIENCE ADVANCES
20 Jul 2022 Vol 8, Issue 29 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abo0038



Abstract


Public attitudes that are in opposition to scientific consensus can be disastrous and include rejection of vaccines and opposition to climate change mitigation policies. Five studies examine the interrelationships between opposition to expert consensus on controversial scientific issues, how much people actually know about these issues, and how much they think they know. Across seven critical issues that enjoy substantial scientific consensus, as well as attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and mitigation measures like mask wearing and social distancing, results indicate that those with the highest levels of opposition have the lowest levels of objective knowledge but the highest levels of subjective knowledge. Implications for scientists, policymakers, and science communicators are discussed.

INTRODUCTION
Uncertainty is inherent to science. A constant striving toward a better understanding of the world requires a willingness to amend or abandon previous truths, and disagreements among scientists abound. Sometimes, however, evidence is so consistent, overwhelming, or clear that a scientific consensus forms. Despite consensus by scientific communities on a handful of critical issues, many in the public maintain anti-consensus views. For example, there are sizable gaps in agreement between scientists and laypeople on whether genetically modified (GM) foods are safe to eat, climate change is due to human activity, humans have evolved over time, more nuclear power is necessary, and childhood vaccines should be mandatory (1). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic also continues on, fueled in part by contagion among the unvaccinated (2), while social movements against vaccination policies are emerging worldwide. The consequences of these anti-consensus views are dire, including property destruction, malnutrition, disease, financial hardship, and death (3–6).

Opposition to the scientific consensus has often been attributed to nonexperts’ lack of knowledge, an idea referred to as the “deficit model” (7, 8). According to this view, people lack specific scientific knowledge, allowing attitudes from lay theories, rumors, or uninformed peers to predominate. If only people knew the facts, the deficit model posits, then they would be able to arrive at beliefs more consistent with the science. Proponents of the deficit model attempt to change attitudes through educational interventions and cite survey evidence that typically finds a moderate relation between science literacy and pro-consensus views (9–11). However, education-based interventions to bring the public in line with the scientific consensus have shown little efficacy, casting doubt on the value of the deficit model (12–14). This has led to a broadening of psychological theories that emphasize factors beyond individual knowledge. One such theory, “cultural cognition,” posits that people’s beliefs are shaped more by their cultural values or affiliations, which lead them to selectively take in and interpret information in a way that conforms to their worldviews (15–17). Evidence in support of the cultural cognition model is compelling, but other findings suggest that knowledge is still relevant. Higher levels of education, science literacy, and numeracy have been found to be associated with more polarization between groups on controversial and scientific topics (18–21). Some have suggested that better reasoning ability makes it easier for individuals to deduce their way to the conclusions they already value [(19) but see (22)]. Others have found that scientific knowledge and ideology contribute separately to attitudes (23, 24).

Recently, evidence has emerged, suggesting a potentially important revision to models of the relationship between knowledge and anti-science attitudes: Those with the most extreme anti-consensus views may be the least likely to apprehend the gaps in their knowledge. In a series of studies on opposition to GM foods, Fernbach et al. (25) found that individuals most opposed were the least knowledgeable about science and genetics but rated their understanding of the technology the highest in the sample. A similar pattern emerged for gene therapy, although not for climate change denial. Related findings have been reported for opponents of vaccination claiming to know more than doctors about autism (26) and for anti-establishment voters in a Dutch referendum reporting knowing more about the issues than they really do (27). Those with the most strongly held anti-consensus views may be not only the least knowledgeable but also the most overconfident about how much they know (28, 29).

continued https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0038

[Wounded Bear]

1. Sounds like Dunning-Kruger effect...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. Some researchers also include the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task.

[BootinUp]

2. They addressed Dunning-Kruger in the Discussion section

DISCUSSION
Results from five studies show that the people who disagree most with the scientific consensus know less about the relevant issues, but they think they know more. These results suggest that this phenomenon is fairly general, although the relationships were weaker for some more polarized issues, particularly climate change. It is important to note that we document larger mismatches between subjective and objective knowledge among participants who are more opposed to the scientific consensus. Thus, although broadly consistent with the Dunning-Kruger effect and other research on knowledge miscalibration, our findings represent a pattern of relationships that goes beyond overconfidence among the least knowledgeable. However, the data are correlational, and the normal caveats apply.

[Mosby]

13. Dunning-Kruger effect has been debunked.

The Dunning-Kruger effect, which claims that the least skilled individuals consistently overestimate their abilities, has been debunked as a mathematical artifact rather than a reflection of human cognition. The majority of people can actually gauge their competence and knowledge accurately.

https://scitechdaily.com/math-professor-debunks-the-dunning-kruger-effect/

[Kablooie]

3. Seems to me it's because Fox news tells them

The science is bogus

[delisen]

4. This is a failure of government, academia, & scientists

We have had massive changes in our methods of communication in the last 30 years and government for example has not kept up with these changes. In the old days our communications channels were not so dispersed and splintered. If government wanted to get messages out it could count on the radio, television, newspapers, and even Hollywood studios. People were listening to the same radio stations, network programming, reading the same newspapers, and watching the same movies; they were also often reading the same books . Things were more cohesive.

In the old days network television were required to make room for Public Service Announcements. (PSAs) Government and community non-profits could use these to promote things like vaccines and good social behaviors. I remember one playing over and over during breaks in sports events. It was a jingle about not being a “one man band.” I still remember the refrain: his music is a poor excuse, it’s corn mixed up with lemon juice. If it were playing today I think many of us would be reminded of a certain ex-president.

As for academia and scientists, if you want your ideas to to prevail, the first rule of communication is control your ego, do not look down on your intended audience, listen and learn from your intended audience , then tailor your message to your audience. Carl Sagan understood and practiced this. Sadly he was rejected by many scientists who looked down not only on the wide audiences he reached, but on Sagan himself as a “popularizer.”

We can win respect and appreciation of science; we can win almost total acceptance of vaccines but we cannot do it if we convince ourselves that people are too stupid or unwilling to learn, or effectively otherize them.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Also failure of childhood education. Kids are natural scientists until it is beaten out of them

Observe two year old toddlers testing everything: prodding, poking, dropping, bashing, pushing, pulling, stretching. Tasting everything.

Kids get logic if you tell them that it is a super-power that they can acquire.

As to ego, your point is spot on. Real scientists (not used ironically) try to disprove their own theories. "Hey Jane, look over this please. I've tried angle A and perspective B and attack C and I haven't found a flaw yet. See if you can find one."

But the poorly educated and the less intelligent (lower 50% by whatever reasonable measure) tend to look for evidence that supports their position and they think that is what scientists do.

They tend to otherize themselves and reject attempts to reach out to them. Sealing off contradictory information is part of the psychology of over-confidence in knowledge. Part of this is the cumulative effect of having been found wrong more times than their smarter peers; so a kind of coping mechanism: childhood peers can be brutal.


All the same, there is a large portion of the "poorly educated and less intelligent" who rank in the top quartile of wisdom. The ones who work hard all their lives, raise their children to have better lives than their own, and who die having left the world better for their existence. They may not as often know "why" things are the way they are but they often understand better the "what" and the "how" of the way things are.

[delisen]

9. Good points.

Children as natural scientists and their ability to comprehend logic resonates with me.

[whatistheformat]

16. Children are natural scientists until they are told they aren't

This was my first thought- the problem occurs in elementary education. Kids should be shown there is a way they, themselves, can determine how things in the world work, and it begins with simple observation. From there, coming up with ideas about why they observed what they did, and trying to prove or disprove those ideas. The breakdown comes when teachers don't explain, or demonstrate, this method can be used in all areas of life. Can be used to understand anything, really. And even if we can't pass advanced math and becoming actual scientists, we can still use the scientific method to explain our world.

I once explained to my kids why the founding fathers would bother recording the daily temperature and weather conditions in their diaries. Successful agriculture is the difference between life and death. Benjamin Franklin could step back, take note of yearly trends- a rudimentary form of the computer models that automate this kind of work now- and advise farmers about how to thrive in this new-to-them environment. That he took these observations and sold them at a profit was beside the point

[Igel]

15. And then there's the last stage or two when talking to adults in a democracy.

If they choose not to follow the advice--because that's what it must be in a democracy or when dealing with adults you don't control--you may decide to keep talking but don't be offended when they don't pay attention.

(Being honest about the drawbacks is also a good thing, but not confusing the science-based "the science indicates this will happen and the way to avoid it is X" with the coercive political "the science indicates this will happen and as a result we must all do X" is a good start.)

[Permanut]

5. One of the main reasons people in my family discredit science..

Is that they know the real truth about such things as the age of the earth, talking snakes, worldwide floods and the sun "standing still".

[NNadir]

6. We have lots of people right here at DU who participate in this contempt for science.

I interact with them all the time here.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Like self-esteem: highest self-esteem is in prison populations. Also highest rate of "christian" ID.

[PJMcK]

10. Simple answer

Most people are scientifically ignorant. They don’t learn enough scientific fundamentals in middle and high school. They don’t understand the scientific process. They confuse the scientific term “theory” with “idea.”

Besides, the word “belief” is inappropriate because science is about learning to “know” things. Belief belongs in religion which should never be involved in science.

[BootinUp]

11. That sentence with "believe" bothers you that much?

But it could have been put better by the mastodon poster. I use the word in more instances than just talking about religion that is for sure.

[PJMcK]

12. Facts are generally demonstrable, beliefs not as much

Beliefs are subjective. Science is objective. They’re fundamentally incompatible.

That was my point. I believe you’ll understand my observation about the subject of the OP.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Really Good Article, But...

...a nit to pick.
The title says "...believe in".
We don't believe IN science. We believe the science & the studies. "Believe in" seems like a faith issue.
Maybe "trust" is a better term.