December 2011 Discussion topics
Steve
Iain
have done #5 and 7.
1. Paradigm shifts in science (e.g. Ptolemy, Kepler, Gallileo)
2. Science Wars/Sokol Hoax
3. Consciousness
4. Objectivism
5. Relativism X
6. Anti-Elitism/Anti-Intellectualism/Anti-Science attitude and how to
fix it
7. The Technological Singularity X
Anyone have any thoughts on these, or any other ideas? I would be
interested in discussing #1 and the related subject of how non-
scientists perceive or are taught about these paradigm shifts. The
Sokal hoax is an interesting look at the bridge (or divide) between
science and philosophy, but perhaps that has been talked about enough
in the relativism meeting?
Please folks, feel free to put forward other ideas. It would be useful
to keep this list of potential subjects 'topped up' so that we can
keep going back to the well.
~~~~ Iain
On Nov 10, 5:27 pm, Steve <sbratt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Suggestions for December discussion?
Thomas Truong
implementations of good ideas such as 6.
It's known that people are swayed by highly practical truths that
reaches into people's narcissism. I actually have a main goal for
attending these meeting and it's to learn more about good ideas to
implement through social media. I wrote a blog that gained the
attention of business leaders that have remained good contacts. For
example, I know the CEO of BancVue who runs the most innovative
FinTech company in finance. I'm looking to move up a step. With new
social innovations coming out, there's a lot of potential to make a
social impact with an especially forward thinking group combined with
our high times of social transformation.
I have to admit, the way things are right now needs to be changed with
both a rational and emotional mind. Developed emotions e.g. morality
is basically missing in narcissistic structures we rely on such as big
banks.
However, I'm just voicing my person interests. If there are any people
interested that would be great.
Steve Bratteng
Steve
Why 'Scientific Consensus' Fails to Persuade
ScienceDaily (Sep. 14, 2010) — Suppose a close friend who is trying to
figure out the facts about climate change asks whether you think a
scientist who has written a book on the topic is a knowledgeable and
trustworthy expert. You see from the dust jacket that the author
received a Ph.D. in a pertinent field from a major university, is on
the faculty at another one, and is a member of the National Academy of
Sciences. Would you advise your friend that the scientist seems like
an "expert"?
If you are like most people, the answer is likely to be, "it depends."
What it depends on, a recent study found, is not whether the position
that scientist takes is consistent with the one endorsed by a National
Academy. Instead, it is likely to depend on whether the position the
scientist takes is consistent with the one believed by most people who
share your cultural values.
This was the finding of a recent study conducted by Yale University
law professor Dan Kahan, University of Oklahoma political science
professor Hank Jenkins-Smith and George Washington University law
professor Donald Braman that sought to understand why members of the
public are sharply and persistently divided on matters on which expert
scientists largely agree.
"We know from previous research," said Dan Kahan, "that people with
individualistic values, who have a strong attachment to commerce and
industry, tend to be skeptical of claimed environmental risks, while
people with egalitarian values, who resent economic inequality, tend
to believe that commerce and industry harms the environment."
In the study, subjects with individualistic values were over 70
percentage points less likely than ones with egalitarian values to
identify the scientist as an expert if he was depicted as describing
climate change as an established risk. Likewise, egalitarian subjects
were over 50 percentage points less likely than individualistic ones
to see the scientist as an expert if he was described as believing
evidence on climate change isunsettled.
Study results were similar when subjects were shown information and
queried about other matters that acknowledge "scientific consensus."
Subjects were much more likely to see a scientist with elite
credentials as an "expert" when he or she took a position that matched
the subjects' own cultural values on risks of nuclear waste disposal
and laws permitting citizens to carry concealed guns in public.
"These are all matters," Kahan said, "on which the National Academy of
Sciences has issued 'expert consensus' reports." Using the reports as
a benchmark," Kahan explained that "no cultural group in our study was
more likely than any other to be 'getting it right'," i.e. correctly
identifying scientific consensus on these issues. They were all just
as likely to report that 'most' scientists favor the position rejected
by the National Academy of Sciences expert consensus report if the
report reached a conclusion contrary to their own cultural
predispositions."
In a separate survey component, the study also found that the American
public in general is culturally divided on what "scientific consensus"
is on climate change, nuclear waste disposal, and concealed-handgun
laws.
"The problem isn't that one side 'believes' science and another side
'distrusts' it," said Kahan referring to an alternate theory of why
there is political conflict on matters that have been extensively
researched by scientists.
He said the more likely reason for the disparity, as supported by the
research results, "is that people tend to keep a biased score of what
experts believe, counting a scientist as an 'expert' only when that
scientist agrees with the position they find culturally congenial."
Understanding this, the researchers then could draw some conclusions
about why scientific consensus seems to fail to settle public policy
debates when the subject is relevant to cultural positions.
"It is a mistake to think 'scientific consensus,' of its own force,
will dispel cultural polarization on issues that admit scientific
investigation," said Kahan. "The same psychological dynamics that
incline people to form a particular position on climate change,
nuclear power and gun control also shape their perceptions of what
'scientific consensus' is."
"The problem won't be fixed by simply trying to increase trust in
scientists or awareness of what scientists believe," added Braman. "To
make sure people form unbiased perceptions of what scientists are
discovering, it is necessary to use communication strategies that
reduce the likelihood that citizens of diverse values will find
scientific findings threatening to their cultural commitments."
The Journal of Risk Research recently published the study online. It
was funded by the National Science Foundation's division of Social and
Economic Sciences.
Kahan et al. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of
Risk Research, 2010; 1
Iain
not received any MeetUp reminder, which is usually how I know when
these things are happening.
I read this article from The Atlantic the other day, "I Was Wrong, and
So Are You". While I would say it's not really science (economics at
best is a 'soft' science like sociology, despite all the mathematics
they use!) I do think this shows a similar effect is prevalent in all
walks of life, not necessarily just those of 'laypeople' who happily
cherry pick the bits of science they already agree with.
The Atlantic article immediately made me think of the famous
experiment on attitude polarization and biased assimilation published
in the late 70s (Lord, Ross & Lepper), where two different groups of
subjects were found to distort the same evidence to fit their existing
beliefs on the death penalty in relation to crime prevention.
Atlantic article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/i-was-wrong-and-so-are-you/8713/
Nice little summary of the Lord et al. 1979 paper:
http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/lord_death_pen.html
I think the larger picture, and how that relates to the discussion
group topic, is that the public grossly misunderstand how scientific
consensus is reached. I think this is in no small part due to the
continued reinforcement of this idea that scientists work in isolation
and simply make discoveries one after the other which can be easily
crystallized into absolute proofs (not a term used in science – proofs
are for mathematicians). When the public get a glimpse into real
scientific debate it is usually as a result of the media attempting to
'show the controversy' to generate a story; when confronted with this
uncertainty, the general public often see this as a failure of
science, whereas this continual exchange and refinement of ideas is in
fact the bedrock of science.
On Nov 19, 11:39 pm, Steve <sbratt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am including an article that bears on the topic to some extent:
>
> Why 'Scientific Consensus' Fails to Persuade
> ScienceDaily (Sep. 14, 2010) — Kahan et al. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of
> Risk Research, 2010; 1
Steve Bratteng
You can add comments to the discussion and to the Google Group.
Thomas Truong
> First off, is there a date confirmed for this group meeting? I have
> not received any MeetUp reminder, which is usually how I know when
> these things are happening.
>
> I read this article from The Atlantic the other day, "I Was Wrong, and
> So Are You". While I would say it's not really science (economics at
> best is a 'soft' science like sociology, despite all the mathematics
> they use!) I do think this shows a similar effect is prevalent in all
> walks of life, not necessarily just those of 'laypeople' who happily
> cherry pick the bits of science they already agree with.
>
> The Atlantic article immediately made me think of the famous
> experiment on attitude polarization and biased assimilation published
> in the late 70s (Lord, Ross & Lepper), where two different groups of
> subjects were found to distort the same evidence to fit their existing
> beliefs on the death penalty in relation to crime prevention.
>
> Nice little summary of the Lord et al. 1979 paper:http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/lord_death_pen.html
>
> I think the larger picture, and how that relates to the discussion
> group topic, is that the public grossly misunderstand how scientific
> consensus is reached. I think this is in no small part due to the
> continued reinforcement of this idea that scientists work in isolation
> and simply make discoveries one after the other which can be easily
> crystallized into absolute proofs (not a term used in science – proofs
> are for mathematicians). When the public get a glimpse into real
> scientific debate it is usually as a result of the media attempting to
> 'show the controversy' to generate a story; when confronted with this
> uncertainty, the general public often see this as a failure of
> science, whereas this continual exchange and refinement of ideas is in
> fact the bedrock of science.
There seems to be a science bias here. Don't worry I have a
implementation biases. Anyways, science is the idea, but it needs good
execution because there are millions of good ideas out there as well.
Science is relevant to the general public if it can be implemented and
because of this, it will have that political side to it.
As for soft and hard science, there is a reason why companies are
starting to choose managers who have soft skills over engineers who
have years of proven technical experience as chief technology
officers. It has to do with strategic vision. Engineers have a deep
focus on a field than most people making them excellent specialist.
However, when implementing something successfully, one has to take
into account culture which is multidimensional and perhaps catered
towards a descriptive soft science.
Almost all revolutionary changes either in science, business,
politics, and religion is made by what is termed "narcissistic
leaders". Don't let the words fool you. Narcissistic here denotes a
person born with a specific talent to see everything...even the
universe as a part of themselves to the point of even seeing
themselves as a small part in the wholeness of things. This is where
their strategic vision derives from. Famous and current examples are
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.
Here is a Harvard business review article on narcissistic leaders.
http://showsupport.typepad.com/odyssey/files/ccc-081208-macoby.pdf
However, I'd like to discuss how people can rely less on leaders and
make significant changes by themselves.
That aside, the topic of polarization I found was substantial.
Thomas Truong
What is it that Oprah Winfrey, Jack Welch, Martha Stewart, and Bill
Gates all have in common?
Thomas Truong
discuss around the table. From what was said from the posts, there
seems to be a lot of analysis on reaching to the general public.
Perhaps trying to reach the general public is too ambitious of a
discussion. Also to have everyone talk their share, people could make
it a courtesy to have everyone talk at least 3-4 times. Most of my
suggestion are at the end, but here is the explanation.
We left off from the topic on the technological singularity in our
last discussion. Just wanted to say I disagree that AI will be ruling
the world as my high school report on this predicted 2008. However,
there will be some far reaching unimaginable social and technological
changes. One of the social changes is perhaps interestingly the
maturity of collaboration.
Collaboration was mentioned in Ian’s suggestion of a scientific
validation process.
Right now, the government is gigantic bureaucratic monstrosity of an
institution. So it would probably be mute to affect change through
traditional politics. 50% of people don’t care about political issues
perhaps because they’re fazed at the embarrassing incompetency and
inefficiency in the government. In these dangerous economic times, who
knows if the US government can slide by as usual with corrupt
politicking. Hopefully, the terrible mistakes currently being made
will open up people’s values to better solutions. This embarrassment
is not the government’s fault but bad designs in an objective decision
making process as mentioned in the previous articles detailing
polarization and bias. No humans in congress or government leadership
are capable of fixing or understanding the economy.
In this TED video that summarizes the pro and cons
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html
Basically with collaboration, the future becomes clearer and complex
solutions become faster to adopt. However, it’s unlikely that
collaboration will replace institutions as institutions have their
advantages when not handling tasks that are beyond human competence.
Some hybrid will occur.
Institutions role: Manage the humanly possible
Collaborations role: Derive collective conscious trends and solutions
But who know?
http://www.ted.com/talks/marcin_jakubowski.html
So for a meet up description if anything can be added,
Maybe we could simplify it to collaborations which could then extend
to topics about the general ignorance or more likely apathy on
substantial issues with examples of the science validation process
mentioned. The topics collaboration may be more interesting to wider
range of people as well. As for how anyone can make a difference.
Collaborations may provide a method for this.
The description would look like this,
Collaborations on Crisis!
Or for a more subtle title
“Collaborations on Crisis
We discussed the technological singularity last month. This leads us
on to a future vastly different from our own with AI ruling the world
and perhaps human slavery. Looking towards a more current bleak future
with a collapsing government. There's drastic social and technological
changes. One topics needed to be discussed is how we organize who
rules over whom?
General Overview
http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
Collaborative leadership in times of change
http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/journal/archive/spring-2009/features/collaborative-leadership-in-times-of-change
The competition of institution and collaborations:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html
Integrating institutions and collaborations:
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/35096/page2/
Example of collaboration in everyday life
http://www.ted.com/talks/marcin_jakubowski.html
Criticisms of collaboration
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/12/eight_dangers_of_collaboration.html”