The Internet has made it easier than ever before to catch and correct misinformation. Dan Rather’s false reporting on George W. Bush’s National Guard experience was exposed by a blogger. On my own blog earlier today, with the help of some Facebook friends, I had a quick answer to an atheist’s false claims about philosophers’ beliefs.
Corrections abound. Why then do errors persist? (Why is there always somebody wrong on the Internet?)
That question has been bothering me especially this week, as David Barton’s errors have been brought into more public light. My experience blogging has taught me that if I don’t know what I’m talking about I’d better not talk about it. Someone will challenge me and I’ll have to yield. It has its value as a learning experience but it doesn’t do much for my credibility.
From the other side, the Internet is overrun with writers saying that Christians who accept the injunctions in Leviticus against homosexuality should stone their daughter if she’s not a virgin on her wedding night. Here’s a sample search for you. This misinformation persists even Christians (also appearing on that same Google search) show its purveyors that they don’t understand the Bible as well as they think they do. I could share a thousand more examples like this one.
Confirmation bias is a well established psychological phenomenon. We tend to see that which we agree with more clearly and more openly than that which we disagree with. Atheists, believers, and everyone in between are all subject to it. I find that when I’m reading complex material, if I agree with where the author is taking it I can understand it much more easily than if it’s something I disagree with—even if the two are equally challenging, on a neutral, objective standard. I’m pretty sure that contributes to bias.
Sometimes we pursue “facts” that we want to be true, whether they are indeed factual or not. Many Christians, especially politically conservative Christians, have done this with David Barton. Presumably, though, most of us would much rather pursue what’s actually true. I commend to you a simple three step plan for topic areas on which you may need to form an opinion:
1. If you know what you’re talking about—if you have expertise in the subject area—then go for it.
2. If not, then use caution. Do some research. Don’t jump to conclusions. Find out who disagrees with whom, and why.
3. Having done that research, speak according to what you know.
(For topics on which you don’t really need to form an opinion, “I don’t know” works just as well.)
Someone asked me a couple months ago what I thought about David Barton. I said, “I’ve heard him speak, I know pretty much what his themes are, I’ve heard others raise concerns about his accuracy, I haven’t studied it enough to know what to make of those concerns, so I’m taking a cautious stance.” Now, with a lot more information available, I’m more convinced he’s been guilty of stretching facts (to put it charitably).
The same principle would ease tensions in the young earth-old earth debate. Whatever the topic, it would have the virtue of preventing a lot of us from speaking more than we know.
Meanwhile errors will persist on the Internet and beyond, because too many of us think we know more than we actually know, and we’re not listening to the other side. To suppose there could be any other outcome would be foolishly idealistic.
August 13th, 2012 | 3:23 pm | #1
These are great themes for soul-searching and critical reflection. A word of caution, however: in my anecdotal experience, fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals tend to exhibit rather questionable beliefs about “expertise in the subject area,” what it means to “do research,” and what it is that they “know”. In this regard, I fear that they have taken the ideal of becoming like little children a bit too literally.
Also, I am often struck by the kind of tribal epistemology among conservative evangelicals. They tend to exhibit extreme distrust and suspicion towards those outside their own narrow circle. Those within their circle, however, are trusted far beyond what any of their actual expertise can reasonably support. It is as if they view their own as guided into the truth by God, and everyone else as guided into deceptive error by Satan. That would somewhat explain the pattern I seem to see.
August 13th, 2012 | 9:07 pm | #2
@B.lily: while I don’t particularly disagree with your comment, I’d like to point out that the effects in question are not unique to religious folks. I’ll do so by paraphrasing your words back at you.
In my anecdotal experience, new-atheists and scientific rationalists tend to exhibit rather questionable beliefs about “expertise in the subject area,” what it means to “reason,” and what it is that they “know”. In this regard, I fear that they have an inflated view of the importance of their own field of qualification, and of their own intellectual capacity.
Also, I am often struck by the kind of tribal epistemology among scientific rationalists. They tend to exhibit extreme disdain and contempt towards those outside their own narrow circle. Those within their circle, however, are trusted far beyond what any of their actual expertise can reasonably support. It is as if they view their own as guided into the truth by the scientific method, and everyone else as guided into deceptive error by superstition. That would somewhat explain the pattern I seem to see.
Of course, if you happen to be a member of the scientific rationalist tribe, you’ll think I’m being unreasonable by drawing this parallel, because the scientific method IS the path to all truth (and if I think otherwise, I should go without computers and modern medicine).
August 13th, 2012 | 10:09 pm | #3
You can of course find strong parallels in many communities. I’d bet, for example, that there’s some non-Christain New Age colony in Arizona that shares most the vices of fundamentalist Christianity and then some. I’m also sure we could find many individual atheists that exhibit certain of these vices. To be honest, however, I’ve not found the tribal vices present to the same extent at the university level (although I’ve not been to any fundamentalists universities). Be skeptical if you like, but in my experience an advanced degree in a specific subject matter typically does increase one’s understanding of the expertise in that particular subject matter. That understanding often has a secondary effect of increasing one’s understanding of what expertise looks like generally, and what it is to do decent research. To the trained eye, our top research universities and our most respected peer reviewed journals look very different from the typical cult. If, to the untrained eye, or to the fundamentalist, these things look all alike, then that would be one of the problems I’m cautioning against.
August 14th, 2012 | 1:56 am | #4
The confirmation bias is a tricky thing. Personally, I like to read any number of opinions on an issue. If one is strong in his/her faith, it shouldn’t be a problem.
August 14th, 2012 | 12:06 pm | #5
“…an advanced degree in a specific subject matter typically does increase one’s understanding of the expertise in that particular subject matter.”
Being one who holds several degrees of various types, I certainly hope so. The problem is not with increased understanding, but in overestimating the importance of one’s knowledge. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, so those who assert that every question can be answered scientifically tend to be those with a concentration of expertise in science.
“That understanding often has a secondary effect of increasing one’s understanding of what expertise looks like generally, and what it is to do decent research.”
Yes, except when it doesn’t. A concentration of expertise in a field which performs research in a certain way may lead one to think that all valid research must be performed in that manner, and thus to erroneous judgements about the validity of research in other fields. It makes no sense to hold a mathematician to the research standards of biology, obviously enough. Nevertheless, scientific rationalists assert their superiority by belittling fields which do not have an empirical research programme.
“To the trained eye, our top research universities and our most respected peer reviewed journals look very different from the typical cult.”
I’m sure that they look very different even to an untrained eye at a casual glance. What makes the comparison interesting is the similarities that persist despite the differences. Religions and rationalists alike preach at us about what we should believe, and why we should believe it. They rest their authority on different foundations, but the strength of their convictions is equal and unshakable.
That similarity was my original point.
If you think that all the epistemic vices are primarily committed by other tribes, then you’ve probably fallen victim to confirmation bias.
August 14th, 2012 | 1:46 pm | #6
Good points, TFBW. To suppose that research universities, and research in general, are free of bias is to be rather over-optimistic. Science is self-correcting where it’s self-correcting: when paradigms are operationalized and tested in the lab, for example, or an experiment is repeated elsewhere. But the social sciences are awash with unconfirmed results, findings taken as authoritative on the basis of just one study. Social and financial (esp. grant) pressure on the sciences in general limits what questions may be asked, which is another expression of bias which leads to and possibly springs from overconfidence concerning what is known.
A good research university does indeed look different from a cult. No disputing that. But it’s not by any means free of “tribal vices.”
August 14th, 2012 | 1:59 pm | #7
TFBW, it sounds as if you have an axe to grind against “scientific rationalists”. Could you explain more of what you mean by this category? (Since I’m not sure that I’ve ever even met anyone from this tribe, I’m not sure how to respond to your comments.)
August 14th, 2012 | 2:33 pm | #8
Let me clarify: my comments do not suggest that any group is ever entirely “free from bias”. Rather, in my response, I meant to point out something that should, I think, be openly acknowledged: that, with regard to the points I raised in my first comment, there are huge differences between the tribal epistemology of fundamentalist/conservative evangelical circles and the sorts of intellectual standards one finds in our top research universities and peer reviewed academic journals.
August 14th, 2012 | 10:02 pm | #9
“…there are huge differences between the tribal epistemology of fundamentalist/conservative evangelical circles and the sorts of intellectual standards one finds in our top research universities and peer reviewed academic journals.”
Could there possibly be someone more enamored of “top research universities” than our B.lily. After just a few posts I think it’s fair to point out that B.lily might just be the ultimate poster child for confirmational bias. That he/she seems so blissfully unaware of their own fawning allegiance to these institutions only attests to this.
August 15th, 2012 | 8:28 am | #10
“TFBW, it sounds as if you have an axe to grind against “scientific rationalists”. Could you explain more of what you mean by this category?”
That’s probably a fair comment. “Scientific rationalism” seems to be a term that is going out of vogue, but the attitude itself is not. “Scientism” is probably the better term, but it has more pejorative overtones. If you know of a better label, I’ll be happy to hear it.
Let’s just say that it is the prescription for the right way to go about knowing things given by people such as Richard Dawkins (e.g. in “A Devil’s Chaplain”, particularly Ch.7.1, “Good and Bad Reasons for Believing”, but also Ch.1.2, “What is True?”). The short version is that science is the only proper way to know what is true. That’s an oversimplification, but a workable one if not interpreted too rigidly. As a corollary, it is the repudiation of all non-scientific ways of knowing, such as intuition or special revelation.
If you want to identify the tribe, think of Dawkins as a tribal elder, and you’ll get roughly the right picture.
August 15th, 2012 | 10:57 am | #11
Not having read Dawkins’ books (and not having them on hand), I’ll have to surmise some. By “science” some people mean only empirical science, to the exclusion of math, philosophy, religion, etc. But since I assume Dawkins believes knowledge can be gained through mathematic and philosophy (he would endorse both forms of thinking, I’d bet), I surmise that the “scientific rationalist” must acknowledge epistemic resources that go far beyond induction from empirical data (or however else we might try to narrowly characterize the distinctive methods of prototypical empirical scientific inquiry). Moreover, since I know of no educated person (scientist or otherwise) who would refuse to concede that knowledge can be gained by hearing about something from a trustworthy and informed authority, we should probably add that the scientific rationalist (if this category is to actually have members) also accepts that knowledge can be gained, at least in principle, by hearing other people’s testimony. So what kinds of putative knowledge sources does the scientific rationalist exclude? Is anyone who rejects the claim that people gain knowledge through private, or “special,” divine revelation thereby a scientific rationalist? If so, isn’t scientific rationalist a perfectly reasonable position to take? (At least as reasonable, let’s say, as the position that accepts that God has revealed his will most perfectly through the Book of Mormon, or through the Koran?)
August 15th, 2012 | 11:41 pm | #12
If you want to read Dawkins’ “Good and Bad Reasons for Believing” online, see http://www.thankgodforevolution.com/node/1950
The reasonableness of scientific rationalism must stand or fall on the precise definition given by the person defending it. A likely source of self-defeat in the doctrine is that it only recognises as true things which have been determined by scientific means. Even given a loose definition of what counts as science (e.g. including apparently non-empirical subjects like mathematics and logic), it’s not clear that the doctrine meets its own requirements for being recognised as true. You may care to analyse whether Dawkins’ prescriptions for “good reasons for believing” qualify as “good” themselves under their own terms of judgement. This is not a problem specific to scientific rationalism, however: it’s a problem common to all strong epistemological declarations.
This is all beside the point, however. My point remains that even highly qualified intellectuals are prone to epistemically dubious practices. Clearly you have some relative admiration for the “intellectual elite” tribe versus the “conservative evangelical” tribe — a fact demonstrated by your tone towards the latter, including the use of “tribe” to describe the latter but not the former. The question remains whether your admiration is justified on the basis of superior epistemic practices, or whether the perception of superiority is the result of confirmation bias resulting from the admiration — or perhaps a bit of both.
The irony in this case is that “confirmation bias” is one of those things that you’d definitely want to eliminate (or at least minimise) in order to actually have superior epistemic practices. Human nature, being what it is, however, tends towards hubris rather than humility. Consequently, it’s all too easy to think, “I am a highly educated and qualified intellectual, therefore I have better epistemic practices than those who are less educated and qualified than I, and therefore I am less prone to confirmation bias than they are” — and not notice that this is the very root of confirmation bias.
Based on this observation, I would say that confirmation bias is best counteracted by practising “epistemic humility”, and this is really what Tom’s original article is about, although he doesn’t use that term. Epistemic humility is characterised by several things, one of which is having a sober judgement as to the extent of one’s own knowledge, as Tom suggests. Another characteristic is a greater concern for the rigour of one’s own arguments than the lack of it in others. It is the case that the arguments of one’s opponents will often lack rigour, but the humble approach is to assume in the first instance that you have simply failed to grasp the argument, and to ask clarifying questions, rather than to launch into attack mode and accuse the opponent of sloppy thinking (which seems to be the preferred course of action in most cases).
The addition of some epistemic humility and basic civility would improve the quality of arguments everywhere, online and off.
August 17th, 2012 | 11:52 pm | #13
On the young/old earth division, it would help if Christians actually sought first to understand what Scripture says AND does NOT say. See
http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/
August 22nd, 2012 | 8:18 am | #14
As someone who believes in the reality depicted by the Bible, and has been professionally trained in both sciences and the legal philosophy that governs society, I am voting for TFBW as having a more mature understanding of this topic than B.lily, who has confessed ignorance concerning the works of Richard Dawkins, one of the most widely published tribal elders of the tribe that asserts “I think scientifically, therefore I am superior”, even as his writing reveals an utter ignorance of philosophy and theology as a three thousand year old dialogue.
And by the way, unlike the Koran, the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, is quite emphatic that the Bible is the word of God, and that it is another work by the same author and editor, brought forward to reaffirm the reality of God and Christ and miracles “in an age of railways” as Charles Dickens put it. It is explicit about the efficacy of special revelation as a source of knowledge not available to those lacking faith in Christ. The almost complete ignorance of the actual content of the Book of Mormon is a marker of all sorts of intellectual tribes who are smug in their certainty of the comprehensiveness of their own conception of truth, to the point that they don’t read books that they think will challenge their worldview. After all, why waste the time when you already know everything there.is to know, i.e. you are omniscient. Lack of intellectual humility, of admitting ignorance, is a disease.among many tribes.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact