Leading Horses to Water
Ancient Greeks began the way of
thinking originally known as natural philosophy but which we now call
science. Science emerged as we know it during the Renaissance, in
an age dominated by fear, superstition, injustice, and brutality.
In other words, pretty much like the present. These musings are
aimed at explaining how science works, and how science can serve even
nonscientists in their efforts to make sense of the world. I can
try to explain things but it’s up to you to decide whether or not you
wish to drink from these waters.
#17 - Confirmation bias
American Heathen: aired: 21 July 2012
Last time, I talked about the role of disagreement in science. A
while back, someone posted a comment responding to an announcement of
our American Heathen show on
Facebook. The comment read as follows: “Being I'm not an
Atheist-Libertarian what I'm (sic) I going to gain?” [The
grammatical error remains unchanged.] My response was:
… you will gain a perspective that's
likely to be different from what you want to hear, but if you only
listen to what you want to hear, then you learn nothing, but only
"confirm" what you think you already know.
All of us are vulnerable to this sort of selective listening. We
all make such choices all the time. Virtually by definition, what
we want to listen to is what we typically choose to listen to. It
seems odd, perhaps, to do otherwise. Why listen to country and
western music if you’re not C&W fan? Why tune in a political
commentator with whom you disagree strongly on most things? Why
go to a basketball game if you’re bored by the game?
In many cases, our choices are driven by our past experience - you
tried to listen to C&W but it just didn’t click with you. You
listened to the political commentator enough times to know he
infuriates you, so why subject yourself to more of that? You’ve
attended basketball games, and found you just weren’t into the
game. These are choices based on experience, not
assumptions. In effect, you’ve collected empirical data, similar
to what a scientist would do, and reached a conclusion based on those
data.
My advice to the person who commented about the American Heathen
posting was based on my assumption that he’d never actually listened to
our show and was basing his reaction on no evidence, other than what he
might know (or thinks he knows) about our show. It’s quite likely
that he indeed would find nothing in our content to make it worth his
time, but one never knows without actually listening in. His view
of the world might be of the sort that he simply would be angered by
our program, as I’m angered every time I listen to Bill O’Reilly on
Faux News. I don’t have a problem with disagreement, assuming it
remains within reasonable bounds, and harbor no anger toward people
with whom I disagree about something. Occasionally, someone with
whom I disagree offers some new and interesting argument to challenge
my position. I find that experience enjoyable, but do not enjoy
hearing the same worn-out non sequitors and flawed logic repeated many times. I like to think that American Heathen
offers challenges to our listeners that may represent a new angle
they’ve not heard before, or is based on something our listeners might
not know.
As a scientist, however, my professional obligation is to pay attention
to the arguments and evidence offered by my professional colleagues,
even those with whom I’m in strong disagreement over some issue; even
when I’ve heard most of their arguments before. We scientists are
required to guard against closing our minds to the contributions of
others. We need to be careful not to succumb to what is called
“confirmation bias” – accepting only evidence that confirms our ideas
and challenging anything that disputes our position. The effort
to avoid confirmation bias is a habit of scientific practice that
translates well into the non-science world. I have no wish to
convert everyone on the planet to being scientists – far from it,
actually – but I do believe that a conscious effort to listen carefully
to ideas we don’t necessarily want to hear is inherently a better way
to think than simply to close your mind and shut out everything that
you don’t like.
Having an open mind means that some
effort to understand the nature of a challenge to your beliefs is
necessary. It does not mean you have to cave in at the first
challenge! Many arguments in science have their foundations in
what is called the consensus within each branch of science, as I talked
about last time. This core of agreement makes scientific
arguments both possible and worthwhile.
Perhaps I’m being naïve but I suspect our political and religious
arguments could do with a heavy dose of scientific standards.
Many people I know are pretty much unwilling to be challenged about
certain topics, which typically is a strong indicator that they really
are not very certain of themselves or the evidentiary basis for their
positions. Challenges to such people are distressing for them,
because they might eventually be forced to admit that their position is
weak or even unjustified. They’re comfortable with their
delusions and illusions and prefer not to have them criticized.
“Please don’t make me think!” Scientists can’t afford to have
that luxury.
Assumptions, beliefs without hard supporting evidence, and dogma are
fit to be challenged. If you want to challenge us … bring it
on! If you’re not willing to be challenged … shut the fuck up!
Science
is not a religion but rather a tool for those who wish to think for
themselves about the natural world. Its primary characteristic is
its willingness to entertain questions from those who wish to obtain
believable answers.