I'd like to go back to something Eric said in our discussion a few weeks ago, because I have another example that might help us get at the problem.

Eric wrote:
> I do want to be a little critical, although perhaps I can be
> critical both of society and scientists. It bothers me that
> not only do some people not embrace the science, but they
> are actively hostile towards science: They really don't
> want to hear scientists tell them that astrology is wrong,
> magnet therapy is wrong, that electric power lines aren't
> causing cancer.

I'd like to suggest that the problem Eric has pointed out is part of a much more general phenomenon: we often care more about the *feeling* that we're doing something about a problem, than about whether we've actually picked the best solution. Maybe it makes us feel less helpless, more in control, to feel as if we're doing something.

My example to add to the discussion concerns some of the misguided environmental activism which is common in the Northwest. I once had a representative from Tri-Met (our regional transit agency) respond to my questions about the best way to reduce pollution by saying, "At the end of the day, it's not really about the numbers. It's about whether we want to preserve a livable community." As if preserving a livable community through pollution reduction is not about numbers!?! (Numbers of people in an area, numbers of cars on the road, numbers of molecules of pollutants in the air...). This person had an idea in his mind about what policies would lead to a livable community, and was interested only in promoting those policies. He was no longer interested in discussing the underlying pollution problem those policies were intended to address.
Sometimes people latch on to a plan of action that makes them feel good (righteous?), and can't be bothered to even discuss whether that plan of action actually, in reality, even achieves the very goals they are supposedly fighting for.

This approach puzzles and confuses (and disturbs!) me, and I think it's basically the same phenomenon that Eric is talking about with the magnet therapy or astrology examples. Like Eric, I'm just hoping to help identfiy/clarify a problem at this point - I don't know what the solution is. But maybe it has to do with a misunderstanding of what we're trying to do when we are skeptical and try to get people to justify that something really works. They think we are opposed to their *goals*, when in fact we share the same goals, but actually want to do things that *work* in achieving the goals. So, in the case of magnet therapy, it's not that we don't want their back pain to go away; we just think the magnet therapy may distract from possible remedies that work. In the case of astrology, we're not opposed to people making meaningful connections to the cosmos; we just want those connections to be based on *reality*. Or in the case of my example, it's not that we don't share the goal of protecting the environment; it's that we want to figure out what will actually protect the environment, instead of blindly doing things that we wrongly assume will help.

Best to all,
Todd
--
*********************************
* Todd Duncan *
* Science Integration Institute *
* duncan@scienceintegration.org *
* (503) 848-0280 *
* www.scienceintegration.org *
* 1971 SE 73rd Ave. *
* Hillsboro, OR 97123 *
*********************************
> From: "Eric R. Weeks" <weeks@deas.harvard.edu>
> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:35:57 -0500
> To: amanda.duncan@intel.com, science@lists.pdx.edu
> Subject: RE: quote of the week
>
>> I think we should be careful about being too critical of
>> society in general for embracing technology, but not the
>> science behind it.
>
> I do want to be a little critical, although perhaps I can be
> critical both of society and scientists. It bothers me that
> not only do some people not embrace the science, but they
> are actively hostile towards science: They really don't
> want to hear scientists tell them that astrology is wrong,
> magnet therapy is wrong, that electric power lines aren't
> causing cancer.
>
> For example, consider "theraputic touch" therapy, where the
> practitioner manipulates the human energy field to help people
> feel better. There was that famous test about a year ago
> where a young girl tested the ability of TT practitioners to
> sense the human energy field; the few that volunteered scored
> no better than chance.
>
> What amazed me about that test was that (1) the practitioners
> denied that this test had proven they had no ability to sense
> the human energy field, (2) very few practitioners were even
> willing to participate in the test, and (3) nobody who refused
> to participate in the test proposed an alternative test that
> would satisfy scientists. So there is this whole community
> of people who believes they are doing something valid that
> does not understand what scientists find objectionable about
> their field. And vice-versa: somehow the scientists are unable
> to communicate why they are skeptical to these TT practitioners.
>
> So what has gone wrong here? Why can't the TT people &
> the skeptics communicate? How can the scientists do what
> Amanda suggests:
>
>> To change this situation, we need to clearly demonstrate the
>> value of being personally familar with the results and methods
>> of science. We need to show how critical thinking can improve
>> people's lives;
>
> In fact perhaps TT practitioners would argue that scientists are
> trying to stop them from healing people, rather than to improve
> people's lives. And perhaps that is the skeptics' failure,
> that they seem somehow insistent that their viewpoint is
> correct, and thus alienate their audience. I don't really know.
>
> So... perhaps I am dragging this away from "appreciation
> of science" and more towards "science -vs- pseudoscience".
> But whether this is society's fault, or more likely scientists'
> fault, it's an area where I see need for improvement: hostility
> of the general public towards hearing scientists' critique of
> various topics. And probably the scientists are the ones who
> need to find better ways to address these topics, so that they
> don't come off sounding like condescending, arrogant experts
> trying to impose their viewpoints... although I suspect that
> may be how this email I just wrote sounds, so, my apologies.
> I can point to the problem but I don't know how to solve it.
>
> --Eric
>
> ps: In reference to an earlier email, I wanted to mention --
> I too run the SETI@Home screensaver on my computer, I agree
> this is a great way to get lots of people involved in a
> scientific project!