The Daily Need

Need to read

The science of truth

By

April 19, 2011

Donkeys are stubborn and elephants never forget. So maybe zoology explains the seemingly intractable divide between Democrats and Republicans. But author Chris Mooney would have us instead turn to psychology and neuroscience for answers.

Climate Desk partner Mother Jones has posted a must-read article by Mooney titled “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science,” which examines the rationalization of self-delusion, or “how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions.”

It’s a fascinating look at how our interpretation of data plays out within an ideological context:

In a classic 1979 experiment, pro- and anti-death penalty advocates were exposed to descriptions of two fake scientific studies: one supporting and one undermining the notion that capital punishment deters violent crime and, in particular, murder. They were also shown detailed methodological critiques of the fake studies — and in a scientific sense, neither study was stronger than the other. Yet in each case, advocates more heavily criticized the study whose conclusions disagreed with their own, while describing the study that was more ideologically congenial as more “convincing.”

You might walk away with some questions: Has science denial really become more pervasive in recent years? Where does this “motivated reasoning” come from in the first place? What can we do to mitigate the effects of our emotional blinders? Do we need to?

Need to Know will be interviewing Chris Mooney for an upcoming broadcast segment and we’ll see if he has any answers. Stay tuned to our website for a first look at the interview footage.

Last modified: April 19, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Tags: , , , , ,
 
SUGGESTED STORIES
  • thumb
    The connections
    Craigslist founder Craig Newmark talks to NTK's William Brangham about how social media and technology can drive social change.
  • thumb
    'I am Trayvon Martin'
    Dawn Porter, lawyer and documentary filmmaker, ruminates on the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager in Florida.
  • thumb
    'Debt' and forgiveness
    Anthropologist and author David Graeber tackles the topic du jour in his new book, “Debt: The First 5,000 Years.”

Comments

  • Anonymous

    It is pretty simple really. Belief over science is based upon two things an egoist based refusal to publicly admit a lack of understanding and the science presents an undesirable truth.
    So they ignore the science until the inevitable catastrophic failure and then blame the result on some one else. Often the scientists for failing to properly explain it, for failing to detail the consequences and for making it all to complicated.
    The lesson, don’t allow greedy people to influence stupid decisions.

  • Lmadams06

    Actually it’s a psychological tendency called “Confirmation Bias.” It has nothing to do with being egotistical or what your beliefs are. Psychologically speaking, people are more inclined to pay attention to and remember facts that support and confirm their already existing beliefs and opinions.

  • Judy A Gogo

    People don’t communicate. When they open their mouths, they’re just marking their territory, including their most dearly held beliefs, which are more likely inherited than the result of objective scrutinization and careful contemplation.

  • goatface

    Of course, the scientists in the study really were lying, so how does a learned mistrust of humans play into their conclusions? Maybe they hadn’t rejected science, only trust in scientists – which might br wise, rather than delusional. Why trust in a scientific conclusion that you cannot understand, simply because someone ‘credible’ said you should? This kind of trust is the same as believing in magic.

  • Louisa

    One person’s truth is another person’s bias conclusion merely based on experience and often masked by perception.

  • Mixolidian

    exactly

  • AJ

    There are so many scientific studies that are overturned a few years later, is it any wonder that people don’t believe them all? Also, there are plenty of studies that “prove” opposite claims (similar to the fabricated studies in the experiment), so we cannot accept them all as fact. We must use personal experience or some other knowledge outside of the studies to sort through them and decide what to believe…