What Scientists And The Public Need To Know About Believing Lies And How We Fight It Together
By: E. Rosalie
Tags: Writing, Science, Philosophy, Social Media, Politics

Peer-Reviewed Politics

Poor science literacy can’t explain the misinformation crisis or the political divide. Getting the cause wrong means we can’t find the right solution.

Exasperation. That’s a word you could use to describe how many scientists are feeling under the current plague of conspiracy theories and snake oil cures.

The belief that the problem comes from a lack of science literacy hurts both scientists and society. We cannot help the public rightly understand scientific findings until we rightly understand why they don’t.

THE STATE OF SCIENCE LITERACY

People understand science. With little evidence, many believed/believe (I was once among them) that not understanding science drives people to do or support things for which we have no evidence. It should be clear to us, from this example alone, that intellect and education offer little protection against mistaking personal impressions for a fact.

The premise also meant assuming those who knew less would trust scientists less, but studies haven’t found that. Though it may not feel like it, public trust in scientists is high, especially compared to politicians who they report distrusting most. We’ve got that going for us.

Pew Research | Self reported trust and distrust

That all makes sense until you realize that our actions show that our views roughly follow the respective political parties. What people report, and what they appear to believe, makes little sense, so we need to find the pieces of this puzzle we aren’t seeing.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER FOR SCIENCE COMMUNICATION?

Opinion, and what changes it, reveals clues about what besides reality affects how we feel and respond. The 2008 market crash provoked a universally negative view of the economy. That seems fair.

The negative view persisted for Republicans even after the economy had improved. Then, their positive outlook shot skyward when a Republican took office. This suggests that their favorable views are responding to something other than the market.

Democrats' positive outlook fell when their opposing party took office. The depth of the shift seems steep compared to the data, though not necessarily extreme. Republicans' shift was several times greater than that of Democrats.

Here exists our problem. Opinions mirrored one another in the past, with a gap likely caused by personal bias. The responses said that both parties were reacting to the same situation, either magnified or diminished depending on the view. The deepening split and opposing responses of today say we are no longer responding to the same reality.

At least that seems more likely than that we quickly embraced diametrically opposing values. The opinion shifts appear in response to the leadership change. Economy and wages have not changed so strikingly as to warrant the large swings in opinion and the timing is wrong for it to be in response to the actual economy.

Bureau of Labor Statistics | BBC

While the GDP has risen, the average hourly wage dipped before returning to just below the place where it started. It’s possible more money was coming into the US economy, but the average person was making less per hour. Perhaps you could make an argument that democrats’ negative outlook reflected the reality, but their negative view arrived before wages fell.

Something else is affecting our perception of reality, but it’s likely not as simple as whatever opposes your view is greedy or communist.

Curiously, the steep-swinging opinions run counter to self-reported trust in scientists who reported nothing that warranted these opinion shifts. There are scientists in almost every field, economy included.

The data beg the question:

People report strong trust in scientists and strong distrust in politicians, so why do their opinions show otherwise? Can people know themselves that poorly?

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT OPINIONS AND BELIEFS

We want to believe whatever falls in-line with those around us, a harmonious existence. Motivated reasoning results. Instead of starting with evidence and drawing a conclusion, we do it backward.

We take something we want or that we think may be true and support it with things we think are evidence — but often, the “evidence” is less proof and more imagination. It’s not that people don’t understand science or that they don’t care about the facts.

Imagine someone says the new guy in town is sketchy. Then you recall seeing him do something, literally anything, and think it seems suspicious now. Looking back, you tag meaning to something that meant nothing earlier. It becomes evidence. Never mind that it meant nothing to you before the suggestion.

People assess information based on what it would mean for their current worldview. I suspect there is a survival instinct deeply embedded in this behavior. We survive by living in a community, so fighting and spouting views counter to those around us threaten our ability to work together and survive.

It’s much easier to be contrarian today, but it used to get you burned at the stake. We used to be much more reactionary. Sometimes we still are. Nature is a hard force to fight, and we often lie the most to ourselves.

If you’re selling crude oil and a study shows how badly burning it hurts the environment, it doesn’t matter if you understand science or not. The odds are that you find the study suspicious and think it’s bad science. What’s the alternative? Dismantling your life and admitting you’re a scourge on the earth sounds about as fun as mediating a debate between Sen. Bernie Sanders and Pres. Donald Trump about climate science.

If you voted for someone who commits a crime or betrays your trust, there is little motivation to see the truth. It won’t fix things, you may worry people will question your judgment, and it could mean the opposing party wins next time. By instilling us with fear of the alternative, those in power ensure we will pardon no matter the offense.

We have little choice if we see these two choices:

Forgive someone who shares my views and that of my friends, for an act my mind has already downplayed and rationalized. Side with my sworn enemy (who will definitely rival a cartoon villain) and bring about the decline of society if they take power.

It’s genius if you think about it. The response is predictable. We look the other way and say it’s for the “greater good.”

Neither party is the enemy in actuality. People have views far too complex to distill into talking points, but we can feel otherwise by not checking our biases and not questioning ourselves about why we believe what we believe.

We are not humble creatures, us humans. We like to be right, so much that we are like a toddler who covers his eyes and believes no one can see him.

How much weight we give something depends on our worldview. If it supports what someone already believes, they accept. If it does not, then the information may strike them as suspect.

People in a study felt this way irrespective of the truth.