Why It Happens and 5 Things You Can Do About It

From Climate Scepticism

BY JOHN RIDGWAY

Science hero-worship became deadly in 2020. Many political leaders unquestioningly supported what scientists claimed to be effective prevention measures. Over the course of the pandemic, people died believing the vaccines to be 100% safe and effective.

Science hero-worship is not new, of course. But it is more important than ever to understand why some people uncritically accept scientific explanations – and what can be done to create critical barriers to the blind acceptance of science.

In my soon to be written book “Science Hero-Worship: Why It Happens and 5 Things You Can Do About It,” I will offer ways for you to understand and combat the problem. Despite a lack of credentials in psychology, I still know that everyone is susceptible to forms of science hero-worship. Most importantly, I know there are solutions.

Here’s my advice on how to confront five psychological challenges that can lead to science hero-worship.

But before I go any further, I have a confession to make. There will be no book, and what you are reading here is very far from being an original article. What I am actually doing is taking an article you can find on The Conversation, titled “Science Denial: Why It Happens and 5 Things You Can Do About It”, and tweaking it ever so slightly to show just how easy it is to turn the weapon on the owner. Keeping that in mind, please continue reading but feel free to consult the original to see how little needed changing in order to do the old switcheroo. Anyway, back to ‘my’ article:

Challenge #1: Social identity

People are social beings and tend to align with those who hold similar beliefs and values. Social media amplify alliances. You’re likely to see more of what you already agree with and fewer alternative points of view. People live in information filter bubbles created by powerful algorithms. And when journalists share misinformation, you are more likely to believe it and share it. Misinformation multiplies and science hero-worship grows.

Action #1: Each person has multiple social identities. I talked with a climate change catastrophe believer and discovered he was also a grandparent. He opened up when thinking about his grandchildren’s future, and the conversation turned to economic concerns, caused by thoughts of Net Zero. Or maybe someone is unaware of the invalidity of the ONS data on vaccines because so are mothers in her child’s play group, but she is also a caring person, concerned about the potential dangers of vaccines to immunocompromised children.

I have found it effective to listen to others’ concerns and try to find common ground. Someone you connect with is more persuasive than those with whom you share less in common. When one identity is encouraging blind acceptance of the science, leverage a second identity to make a connection.

———————

Okay, I’m going to have to stop right here because there are such things as copyright laws, and the switcheroo was so ridiculously simple that I have probably overstepped them already. There are, of course, four more challenges listed in The Conversation article with four corresponding actions to be taken. You will just have to take my word for it that very little would need to be changed within the remainder of the article to switch it from being half-baked instruction on how to tackle ‘science denialism’ into half-baked instruction on how to tackle blind faith in what scientists say – or, more to the point, what journalists say about what scientists say. Specifically, we have:

Challenge #2: Mental Shortcuts

In which the authors claim that ‘science denialism’ stems from people not bothering to take their time to think seriously about the science, preferring instead to fall back on lazy System 1 thinking. This is, of course, referring to the concept of System 1 and System 2 thinking devised by Kahneman and Tversky, and popularised in their book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to the authors that intuitive System 1 thinking and deliberative System 2 thinking are equally relevant to decision-making, and that we all take advantage of their complementary nature regardless of where we fall on the denialist/believer axis. In fact, the easiest way to avoid System 2 thinking is to fall back on trusting the guy in the white coat carrying the clipboard. Remember, the authors are both psychology professors and so they have no excuse for committing such a gaffe.

Challenge #3: Beliefs on how and what you know

In which the authors repeat the canard that the bewildering and rapidly changing advice given out by scientists during the Covid crisis was just science working at its best and that to think otherwise betrays a failure to understand how science is supposed to work. Science, the authors patiently point out, is not about certainties.

The rise of ‘science denialism’ is also blamed on an imagined cohort of fair-minded journalists who, by presenting both sides of arguments, are giving the false impression that there is still debate to be had in areas where the science has already been settled. Science, the authors patiently point out, is all about certainties, as exemplified by the well-known 97% consensus on climate change.

Challenge #4: Motivated reasoning

In which the authors, as you might expect, seem to think that ‘science denialists’ are uniquely guilty. As per the advice they gave against employing mental shortcuts, the ‘science denier’ is encouraged to read around a subject before drawing a conclusion. Damn it! That’s where I have been going wrong all these years.

Challenge #5: Emotions and attitudes

In which the authors warn against letting one’s emotions play too great a role in one’s decision-making. Once again, this is a trait that is supposedly unique to the ‘science denier’ and could not possibly play a role in one’s willingness to swallow uncritically everything that scientists say about a posited existential threat. After all, since when has fear been an emotion?

In summary, the article in The Conversation, is yet another piece of sceptic-bashing nonsense in which the authors extol the benefits of critical thinking whilst failing miserably to employ it themselves. The two professors concerned make much of the dangers of ‘living in information filter bubbles’ whilst giving every impression of occupying one of their own. They warn against mental shortcuts but certainly seem to have fallen under their spell when seeking to interpret the relevance of System 1 and System 2 thinking. They bemoan the failure of the general public to understand the true nature of the scientific enterprise, but I see very little evidence that they have any greater understanding, despite (or because of?) their academic background. They chastise those who engage in motivated reasoning but I suspect that their own reasoning is as motivated as it gets. And, whilst they lay claim to an understanding that emotion is important in decision-making, as long as it is not allowed to get out of hand, one wonders how strongly their own emotions were running when they saw fit to produce such an obviously partisan piece.

There is a serious debate to be had regarding the relationship between science and the general public, but one of the greatest polluters of that debate is a large group of academics who insist on pathologising scepticism, and yet seem incapable of offering any legitimate insights regarding genuinely distinctive traits. Whether it be major offenders such as Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook, or relatively small time felons such as the individuals who wrote this article, all seem to be very much part of the problem whilst purporting to offer the solution. Sadly, therefore, I will not be rushing out to buy “Science Denial: Why It Happens and 5 Things You Can Do About It”. Instead, I will wait for the much more promising, “Psycho-babble Books: Why They Are Written and 5 Things You Should Prefer to Spend Your Money On”.