Evidence And The "worldview Backfire Effect"

[CA Steve]

It is not so much what I mean, as that I have presented this quandry on behalf of TheSkepticChristian and the video he recommends we view.  Do you have misgivings about the nature of the evidence being presented to various groups?  And their subsequent responses?

Well do you know what he meant by it?

I don't have misgivings about the nature of evidence, I have misgivings about the how the term is being used. As we can see in other threads about evidence for the Book of Mormon, what is acceptable to some is not to others. A main point of contention between Jenkins and Hamblin is what constitutes evidence. If those two very smart men cannot agree on what the term means how do the rest of us less gifted intellectually have a rational discussion about it?

[thesometimesaint]

Saint, you should never appeal to the populace. That is never a good argument. That because any % of X believe Y you should believe it too. Let the evidence be presented.

 

Did not say that we should. Unfortunately most of us aren't MD's, or scientists. So we tend to follow the experts that are.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, always going with the consensus would be stupid. Consensus backed up by experiment and evidence is pretty solid, but paradigm shifts can occur when the evidence requires it. The idea that everything is subjective, and nothing can be determined is postmodern nonsense that no one takes seriously.

Nice straw man. I never once said that that everything is subjective. What I did say, or meant to say, is that it is impossible to be completely objective. Everything is indeed an interpretation and many times they are good interpretations but not every interpretation is good. And you can say that is non sense all you want. But it is what it is and it would be futile to argue against it.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Did not say that we should. Unfortunately most of us aren't MD's, or scientists. So we tend to follow the experts that are.

You said we should follow the consensus and offered no evidence in your scenario. Just that we should go with it if 98% say something. I am sorry I don't work that way. I never have and I never will. If I care about an issue then I will research it myself and look at the evidence the experts present and see for my self what is going on.

 

So in essence you did say that but what ever.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

But what we're talking about is not challenging the consensus in favor of something less likely but known. We're talking about rejecting the consensus in favor of something with no evidence behind it. It would be analogous to not having your third procedure and instead going to someone like this:

 

 

No we are not.  We are talking about exactly what Ken and Rodhedlee describe. 

[ERayR]

Well do you know what he meant by it?

I don't have misgivings about the nature of evidence, I have misgivings about the how the term is being used. As we can see in other threads about evidence for the Book of Mormon, what is acceptable to some is not to others. A main point of contention between Jenkins and Hamblin is what constitutes evidence. If those two very smart men cannot agree on what the term means how do the rest of us less gifted intellectually have a rational discussion about it?

 

We are left to do just what they do.  Research, explore and coordinate it with what we already have then draw our own conclusions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In the same way, I get very tired of people insisting that the mere act of disagreeing with consensus is somehow brave and evidence of great intelligence.

And who has done that here John? So you are getting tired over nothing. Who has said that "mere act of disagreeing with consensus is somehow brave and evidence of great intelligence." Besides you of course?

[jkwilliams]

Nice straw man. I never once said that that everything is subjective. What I did say, or meant to say, is that it is impossible to be completely objective. Everything is indeed an interpretation and many times they are good interpretations but not every interpretation is good. And you can say that is non sense all you want. But it is what it is and it would be futile to argue against it.

 

I didn't say you did. I was responding to the idea put forward in this thread and others that evidence is subjective. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

And who has done that here John? So you are getting tired over nothing. Who has said that "mere act of disagreeing with consensus is somehow brave and evidence of great intelligence." Besides you of course?

 

Again, I didn't say you did. I hear it all the time among people whose pet theories go against scholarly consensus. They tell us that scientists are dogmatic and hostile to new ideas, whereas they are free-thinkers who go outside the box and bravely challenge prevailing dogma.

[cinepro]

So, does evidence matter?

 

I think the point of the video is a valid one.  When people are presented with evidence (or apparent evidence) that contradicts their "worldview", then often they reinforce their worldview.  The experiments described involved religious worldviews and political worldviews (probably the two most common "irrational" worldviews people form), but it could conceivably apply to any worldview.

 

Obviously, this applies to many, many different situations, but its greatest value would be for each individual to examine their own "worldviews", and when they're faced with evidence that appears to contradict that worldview, to at least be aware of their tendency to ignore the evidence.

 

I would suggest, however, that the theory of the "Backfire Effect" is totally useless in explaining the responses of others to evidence, since we could very possibly (and likely) be exposing our own biases in the process.

[ERayR]

 

I think the point of the video is a valid one.  When people are presented with evidence (or apparent evidence) that contradicts their "worldview", then often they reinforce their worldview.  The experiments described involved religious worldviews and political worldviews (probably the two most common "irrational" worldviews people form), but it could conceivably apply to any worldview.

 

Obviously, this applies to many, many different situations, but its greatest value would be for each individual to examine their own "worldviews", and when they're faced with evidence that appears to contradict that worldview, to at least be aware of their tendency to ignore the evidence.

 

I would suggest, however, that the theory of the "Backfire Effect" is totally useless in explaining the responses of others to evidence, since we could very possibly (and likely) be exposing our own biases in the process.

 

I would suggest that for a lot if not most it is not that they ignore the evidence but rather their examination of the evidence leads them to conclude it isn't yet convincing enough to over ride their present evidences. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

I would suggest that for a lot if not most it is not that they ignore the evidence but rather their examination of the evidence leads them to conclude it isn't yet convincing enough to over ride their present evidences. 

 

The video does not say people simply ignore the evidence, their brain looks for other explanations and patterns, that is why their position gets stronger. 

 

 

You give medicine far, far too much credit for being an allegedly "exact" science.  I

 

I am not saying medical science is exact, but what happens when a doctor gives the wrong medicine, and the patient dies because of that?

 

ERayR loves talking about interpretations, but there is no room for many interpretations during a medical emergency. 

 

 

rejecting the consensus in favor of something with no evidence behind it

 

The problem is that many non-experts see "evidence" all the time. For example, many think ancient marine fossils prove the Noah's Flood. 

 

 

I get so tired of this " flat earther " poopaganda . Just because someone questions a consensus theory of X , does not automatically mean that they would accept the flat earth as a viable position. It borders on Godwin's Law type of thinking.

 

I am saying the Flat Earth theorists do a good job in defending their views. See their website, it is kind of impressive

http://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

 

 

You said we should follow the consensus and offered no evidence in your scenario

 

Dr. Klaus Oberauer said 

 

 

[–]-Tim-maC- 70 points

3 days ago  

Given that most people do not have enough time during the day or the scientific background to verify most information, what should be the reasonable behavior someone should have in order to have a relatively logical opinion of things?

• permalink

 

 

 

 

[–]Klaus_OberauerProfessor of Cognitive Psychology | University of Zurich 85 points

3 days ago  

That's a very hard question - essentially it is about how to distinguish reliable information from propaganda, given that the propagandists are often very skilled at pretending to have all the features that characterize reliable information. On factual questions, I think by and large it is a good idea to trust scientists more than non-scientists, and among the scientists, to trust the predominant consensus (if there is one) more than the maverick position. That is because a broad consensus among scientists is most likely the result of converging opinions of very clever people who come from very different backgrounds (different personal interests, different biases and prejudices, different knowledge). It is extremely unlikely that the majority of scientists in a field could be biased or corrupted in the same direction.

• permalink
• parent

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[jkwilliams]

The problem is that many non-experts see "evidence" all the time. For example, many think ancient marine fossils prove the Noah's Flood.

No argument here. The debate between Hamblin and Jenkins is a great illustration of that.

[ERayR]

 

ERayR loves talking about interpretations, but there is no room for many interpretations during a medical emergency. 

 

 

The problem is that many non-experts see "evidence" all the time. For example, many think ancient marine fossils prove the Noah's Flood. 

 

 

It happens all the time.  An ambulance rolls in the medical people begin to find out what symptoms are evident.  They then evaluate those symptoms and interpret (diagnose) what they indicate and then decide what is most likely the cause.  In this age of computers there are computer diagnostic programs where symptoms are entered and the computer comes up with likely causes and the medical professionals interpret (diagnose).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/health/quest-to-eliminate-diagnostic-lapses.html

 

Yep and experts too. 

 

That is one explanation, among others but that is for a different thread.

[TheSkepticChristian]

It happens all the time.  An ambulance rolls in the medical people begin to find out what symptoms are evident. 

 

Evident? I though you didn't believe in facts, just interpretations. There is no room for many interpretations about the symptoms that are evident, that is what I am talking about, especially if doctors have a limited time to save someone's life.

 

 

 what is most likely the cause.

 

That is what I am talking about. The scientific and medical community look for the most likely, they look for the best explanation.

 

Scientific consencus = The best known explanation.

 

Imagine if medical doctors never agreed about the most likely cause?

 

 

What do you not understand about the best available explanation is dependent on personal experience and interpretation.

 

In science, it is also dependent on sophisticated methods, Calculus, scrutiny, and advanced technology

 

Please read what Dr. Klaus Oberauer said during a AMA reddit session,

 

 

[–]-Tim-maC- 70 points

3 days ago  

Given that most people do not have enough time during the day or the scientific background to verify most information, what should be the reasonable behavior someone should have in order to have a relatively logical opinion of things?

 

 

 

 

[–]Klaus_OberauerProfessor of Cognitive Psychology | University of Zurich 85 points

3 days ago  

That's a very hard question - essentially it is about how to distinguish reliable information from propaganda, given that the propagandists are often very skilled at pretending to have all the features that characterize reliable information. On factual questions, I think by and large it is a good idea to trust scientists more than non-scientists, and among the scientists, to trust the predominant consensus (if there is one) more than the maverick position. That is because a broad consensus among scientists is most likely the result of converging opinions of very clever people who come from very different backgrounds (different personal interests, different biases and prejudices, different knowledge). It is extremely unlikely that the majority of scientists in a field could be biased or corrupted in the same direction.

Edited July 30, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

Imagine if medical doctors never agreed about the most likely cause?

 

 

 

 

Yo do have a talent for hyperbole.  Must it always be one extreme or the other with you?

[Robert F. Smith]

Well do you know what he meant by it?

I don't have misgivings about the nature of evidence, I have misgivings about the how the term is being used. As we can see in other threads about evidence for the Book of Mormon, what is acceptable to some is not to others. A main point of contention between Jenkins and Hamblin is what constitutes evidence. If those two very smart men cannot agree on what the term means how do the rest of us less gifted intellectually have a rational discussion about it?

Just because two guys have PhDs and plenty of teaching experience at the college undergraduate level doesn't mean that they are smart or that they know what evidence is.  They might just as well be flailing about in the darkness.  How would any of us know the difference?

 

Probably through judicious comparison with the use of evidence in other, similar debates outside of religion.  How do normative archeologists go about their usual tasks, and how do they reach conclusions?  How do they interact with one another over time?  Are their debates fraught with emotional disputes, and how are they resolved?  How does a team of CSIs gather and evaluate evidence?  How do they prepare it for courtroom presentation?  What happens when some forensic experts turn out to be liars and cheats?  Are such disciplines subject to correction?

 

You may not have any misgivings about the nature of evidence, but you haven't spoken to the nature of that study which indicated the "Worldview Backfire Effect."  Isn't that indicative of the responses of the hoi-polloi to so-called "evidence."  What does that mean to you?

[thesometimesaint]

You said we should follow the consensus and offered no evidence in your scenario. Just that we should go with it if 98% say something. I am sorry I don't work that way. I never have and I never will. If I care about an issue then I will research it myself and look at the evidence the experts present and see for my self what is going on.

 

So in essence you did say that but what ever.

 

No! I said doctors doing tests opposed to doctors doing no tests. The key is doing the tests. Sure, you can do whatever you want with your own body. But personally I pay doctors good money to help me feel better when I'm sick or injured. Same with the other sciences. Before I retired people paid me good money for my expertise to help them feel better emotionally. So sure you could get all my training and do all the work necessary, But that is expensive in money and time, and you feel bad NOW.

[Robert F. Smith]

Evident? I though you didn't believe in facts, just interpretations. There is no room for many interpretations about the symptoms that are evident, that is what I am talking about, especially if doctors have a limited time to save someone's life.

 

That is what I am talking about. The scientific and medical community look for the most likely, they look for the best explanation.

 

Scientific consencus = The best known explanation.

 

................................................ Klaus Oberauer said .....................................  

"It is extremely unlikely that the majority of scientists in a field could be biased or corrupted in the same direction."

Unfortunately, Oberauer's statement is false, and many scientists assume rather than prove that particular points of view are correct -- until research shows them wholly or partly wrong, as was the case when Einstein demonstrated the severe limitations of Newtonian physics.  Even then it took years to gain acceptance.

 

Then there is the fact that so much published research is fudged and false, simply to obtain grant money or to obtain a Nobel Prize.  Scientists are all too human.

 

Consensus is nice, but only within severe limitations.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Consensus is nice, but only within severe limitations.

 

So, do you have a better answer for Tim-maC's question? 

I agree, but it is still the best known explanation, I didn't say it is always the right answer. 

Today, there is rarely a consensus on something that has little evidence. 

 

Today who is more likely be right, the consensus or one scientist? 

 

 

as was the case when Einstein demonstrated the severe limitations of Newtonian physics.  Even then it took years to gain acceptance.

 

and there was no reason for non-physicists to take Einstein seriously because a maverick's position is often wrong. How could none-physicists test his theories? 

When a maverick position is proven, the scientist becomes very famous. 

 

 

The only reason why many here don't like scientific consensus is because it contradicts their worldview.  

They often point to Galileo, but Galileo was the scientific consensus of the 17th century. 

Edited July 31, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

The only reason why many here don't like scientific consensus is because it contradicts their worldview.  

They often point to Galileo, but Galileo was the scientific consensus of the 17th century. 

No one here doesn't like scientific consensus. What we don't like is the fallacious appeal to authority.

 

Saying "because the consensus says X is true there for it is" or "97% of scientists say X is correct there for it is" is not a reason to believe something. And you constantly are appealing to authority. You do know that is a logical fallacy right?

Edited July 31, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No! I said doctors doing tests opposed to doctors doing no tests. The key is doing the tests. Sure, you can do whatever you want with your own body. But personally I pay doctors good money to help me feel better when I'm sick or injured. Same with the other sciences. Before I retired people paid me good money for my expertise to help them feel better emotionally. So sure you could get all my training and do all the work necessary, But that is expensive in money and time, and you feel bad NOW.

Not sure what you are even saying.

 

I try not to go to the doctor unless it is serious. No reason to waste money when I can take care of my self in most cases.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Evident? I though you didn't believe in facts, just interpretations. There is no room for many interpretations about the symptoms that are evident, that is what I am talking about, especially if doctors have a limited time to save someone's life.

 

 

Have you been to the doctor? Have you ever had them prescribe you something that didn't work? I have and your logic says I should just keep going to them because " they know what they are talking about".

 

There are plenty of interpretations. That is what a diagnosis is. It is an interpretation of what is going on. Some doctors are good at it and others just plain suck.

 

And weather or not they have limited time is irrelevant.

[thesometimesaint]

Not sure what you are even saying.

 

I try not to go to the doctor unless it is serious. No reason to waste money when I can take care of my self in most cases.

 

You inferred mine was an ad populum argument. It isn't.

 

Neither do I. However the question becomes How do I know if it serious or not without outside information. Say I am having chest pains. Do I contact Joe the plumber down the street because it is just plumbing, or do I contact my doctor?

Edited July 31, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[TheSkepticChristian]

What we don't like is the fallacious appeal to authority.

 

Do you read the scientific literature? Your own scientific research? If you don't, then it is not a bad thing to appeal to the consensus. 

It is a fallacy if you are doing your own scientific research, but it is not a fallacy if you are not.

 

In a good scientific research you use sophisticated methods, expensive lab equipment, and Math. 

Do you know how to find the area enclosed between the curves? It is a very simple Calculus problem. 

 

 

If your Science and Math are not that good, then it is not a bad thing to simply believe the consensus. In fact, it is sometimes necessary. 

 

Have you been to the doctor? Have you ever had them prescribe you something that didn't work? 

 

I was talking about special circumstances. A doctor cannot afford to give a patient a medicine that will kill him. 

 

 

. And you constantly are appealing to authority. You do know that is a logical fallacy right?

 

it is worst if you do your own research when you do not have the appropriate technology. 

This what happens when amateurs do research without technology and expensive lab equipment  

 

See 2:50 - 3:50  

Edited July 31, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian