Flashback – Critical Thinking

The idea behind the flashbacks on Fridays is to review and update some thoughts and examples from the past. These examples remain valid because behavior has changed very little over the years. We are not learning from our mistakes.

 

The main difference in 2020 is that almost every subject quickly becomes political with people taking sides. The Real Solutions are not political. They come from people changing their personal consequences by improved choices using the Five Dimensions. As these individual improvements accumulate, America moves in the right direction. The solutions come from us and not from the government, but try telling someone that in an election year! 

 

Here from almost nine years ago are some thoughts on critical thinking.

[Around the time of the Civil War, John Stuart Mill wrote essays in opposition to slavery and in favor of women’s rights. In both cases he recognized the difficulty of persuading people to change their minds when their conviction was based on feelings rather than logic – thinking with their hearts instead of their brains. Near the beginning of “The Subjection of Women” he writes: “So long as opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses instability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, … the more persuaded adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, … always throwing up fresh entrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old.” In other words, it’s tough to get people to change their mind when their opinion is not based on logic. The more you talk, the deeper they dig in to protect long-held beliefs.  

We see this behavior almost daily. We are warned to avoid subjects of religion and politics in social conversations. They lead to no resolution, instead causing others to protect their turf.

This is why many of my critical thinking arguments will fall on deaf ears. Considering, though, the waste, misdirection and sometimes danger that result from individual and societal forays down these blind alleys of feeling-based decisions, I continue.

There are two categories of critical thinking. The first involves paying closer attention, for example, recognizing the popular advertising pitch of “save up to 50% or more” as virtually meaningless. Literally it means: maybe saving some undefined amount that can be less or more than 50%. Likewise, how can all car insurance companies save you (up to) $300 when you switch? They all say so. One even claims that  80% of those who switched saved money - but doesn't mention the 20% dumb enough to switch anyway. These examples, and many others, just take some basic questioning.

The second category hits on subjects treated almost as religious beliefs. When I warn of the dangers of dietary supplements, the ineffectiveness of performance bracelets, or that all-natural does not necessarily mean healthier, I know there are a certain number of readers who will dig in, ignoring examples, evidence and explanations, knowing in their hearts that they are doing the right thing, resisting rather than even considering an alternative point of view. For some the ideas of green and sustainable are nearly sacred. They will not bat an eye when told that a particular wind turbine, for example, saves enough coal-powered energy to pay for itself in 150 years, but has a life expectancy of only 50 years! “But, but, but it’s green! It must be good. It’s the direction we need to be moving!”  Logic is lost in feelings and further argument leads only to increased resistance.

Nevertheless, I will continue to cite examples and drive the message of critical thinking. Making good decisions most of the time is essential for our success, both as individuals and as a society.]

Abandoning Critical Thinking

We are faced every day with friends and neighbors who seem to be able to stare logic straight in the face and still make the wrong decision. This can easily be misinterpreted as stupid behavior, except we know that many of these people did well in school. Some even have advanced degrees. How else can we explain this apparent abandonment of critical thinking?

My theory is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, opinion polls and the apparent direction of popular trends, America is still a very religious country and is getting more religious with each passing day. The difference is that I am not talking about standard, organized religions. The new religions involve pseudoscience and are promoted by personal interactions, especially on social media, and by celebrity endorsements, rather than by priests, ministers, rabbis and imams. 

Consider how a traditionally religious person reacts when his faith is challenged. Show someone an obvious contradiction in the Bible or the Koran – and there are many to choose from – and such a person will argue for a while, but eventually fall back on the argument that it's a mystery only God can explain or that it is a matter of faith not subject to logical analysis. End of conversation! No one has changed his mind. He may even feel vindicated because his faith was challenged but endured.

Now have a similar conversation with someone convinced that communication with the dead is not only possible, but that it happens frequently on daytime TV and in private homes where mediums hold séances. No matter how much logical information such a person receives, a change of mind is a rare occurrence. A more likely response is the same quasi-religious reaction, resistance to logic and reliance on a strong belief in the spiritual realm.

But this new-age religious experience is not limited to the customers of séances and tarot card readings. With the help not only of charlatans, but also of marketing departments, industry institutes, lobbyists, interest groups, fund-raising organizations and individual crusaders, it spreads through the entire country creeping into every corner of our lives. It is so much easier to sell to people on the basis of faith than on the basis of logic. So all these forces work in concert to gain converts to particular products, services and ideas. The emotional argument draws them in; then the feeling of embarrassment or of betrayal of one's beliefs, keeps them coming back.

Consider the religious fervor displayed by backers of ideas like: harm from vaccination, danger of GMOs, danger of fluoridated tap water, superiority of bottled water, benefits of a gluten-free diet (except for medical necessity), power of alternative medicines, danger of anything artificial or chemical, dietary supplements, radiation from power lines, food irradiation, sea salt, therapeutic touch or Reiki, refusal to consider nuclear power as a clean electricity source, super foods, unquestioned halo-effect of words like green, natural, sustainable and ancient wisdom, essential oils, and the list goes on and on.

Yes, we are truly a religious nation. The religions of junk science, fads, hype and misinformation are thriving, converting new believers every day!

How Much We Take on Faith

The other day I got into a discussion with a colleague about plastic, which led to a comment about the amount of plastic in the ocean and what a problem it is. My response that only about 1% of the ocean plastic comes from the United States was met with stares of disbelief. Instead of arguing the point with someone who firmly believed the opposite, I offered to send references. The next day I emailed an explanation of the situation from a number of reputable sources.

From National Geographic in a story about the large accumulation of waste in the Pacific: "Microplastics make up 94 percent of an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic in the patch. But that only amounts to eight percent of the total tonnage. As it turns out, of the 79,000 metric tons of plastic in the patch, most of it is abandoned fishing gear—not plastic bottles or packaging drawing headlines today."

My next stop was a Bloomberg article with a sub headline of: “Skipping straws may be hip. But there are much better ways to fight pollution.” They first point out that the original estimate, the one activists and news media cite with confidence, that Americans use 500 million straws per day is based on highly dubious data that came from a small survey by a nine-year-old for a grade school science project. Then it was spread without any attempt to verify it by those who wanted to emphasize the problem. "Similarly, two Australian scientists estimate that there are up to 8.3 billion plastic straws scattered on global coastlines. Yet even if all those straws were suddenly washed into the sea, they'd account for about .03 percent of the 8 million metric tons of plastics estimated to enter the oceans in a given year.” So what we have been told about straws being the problem is a gross exaggeration.

A Science report on marine pollution verifies exactly what I was saying with a table on their site,  Table 1 titled: “Waste estimates for 2010 for the top 20 countries ranked by mass of mismanaged plastic waste (in units of millions of metric tons per year).” The US is listed at the bottom of the table with a contribution of .09% – less than one percent. That same information is repeated in pie charts on other sites.

So all this fuss about banning straws is bogus. It is a feel-good exercise that grows because so few people take the time to do the research. Ocean pollution is a problem, but the advocates and politicians are misinformed and are passing along that poor information to the rest of us – and we are buying it.

This and many other trends and movements have become their own religions. They depend on blind faith. The preachers stand up and confidently make ignorant and absurd allegations about chemicals, food safety, pollution, economics and a host of other subjects. The general population takes it on faith, chanting “amen” in all the right places. This leads to poor policies and results in those responsible for poor policies being reelected on the basis of making their followers feel good about themselves, about how pure they are, about how caring they are. It’s much more about ego and self esteem than science or actually saving the planet.

In reality these policies deliver little or no benefit and may have unknown side effects or unforeseen consequences. They are at best a waste of time. Critical thinking is the answer, but who wants to deal with reality?

Full Moon and Other Myths

Ask any number of cops or emergency room nurses, if business picks up under a full moon, and they will quickly confirm your suspicion.  Try telling any of your friends or neighbors that this is not true and you are looking for a fight.  

It’s surprising (and distressing) how many people will strongly defend this kind of information even though they have never done or seen any research presenting evidence one way or another.  They just know it because they know it and believe that it is true.  They will swear by it because something happened to a friend or relative that confirmed it in their mind. Anecdotal evidence is given undue power.

Critical thinkers stand no chance in these situations.  They can’t carry around in their pockets information like the following:  “‘Published [research] does not confirm that there is a change in the amount of violence, reported crimes or aggressive behavior during a full moon,’ Eric Chudler told ABC News. Chudler, a research associate professor in bioengineering at the University of Washington in Seattle, has studied more than 100 research papers on the purported effects of the full moon on human affairs.”

Even presented with this real evidence, people would continue to believe in the power of the full moon.  (Even though they may reject the idea of werewolves.) Other studies have found that some of the strongest proponents of this myth, that nights with a full moon are prone to result in a higher crime rate and more cases of trauma, turn out to be nurses and police officers. 

But doctors at the Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh studied the data on health-care myths and one did a study involving area nurses. He said he found that 69 percent of surgical nurses in his study believed that a full moon led to more chaos and incoming patients that night.  The myth persists, just because people expect to see such patterns and can easily convince themselves that they exist – “See, it’s the full moon. Get ready for a busy night.”

Endorsement from such authority figures and the sympathetic newspaper stories about a lunar effect provide fuel to perpetuate the belief that the phase of the moon affects behavior.  But scientific, statistical evidence, real studies looking for any relationship, and there have been many of them, show no link between phases of the moon and abnormal or unusual behavior.

Some people, including veterinarians, tend to believe that cats and dogs act strangely on full-moon nights and “studies do show an uptick in emergency room visits for cats and dogs during a full moon and in the days before and after.”  It’s doubtful that the moon has any influence beyond the fact that the nights are brighter and people might allow their pets to stay out longer, increasing the potential for them to injure themselves or otherwise get into trouble.

The main problems with this and other myths are confirmation bias and an over-tendency to look for patterns. These are stressed in several recent books in the field of behavioral economics.  When people see an example of something they believe, they tend to embrace it.  When they see a counter example, they tend to dismiss it.  Few look at it as a research problem where the first step is to gather data, count and compare occurrences.

The second problematic tendency is to look for patterns even where none are present.  The familiar is more comforting than the strange.  Along those lines, it is tempting to assign some cause to an effect, even if the supposed cause is some supernatural or paranormal phenomenon, gods or ghosts.  When The Oprah Show revealed a very unusual meeting or situation, she and the audience would gasp – “What are the odds?” But it’s almost certain that with over 300 million people in America, those working for the show could easily find several examples of unlikely occurrences with odds greater than one in ten million.  It’s not a miracle or synchronicity, it just happens somewhere almost every day.

But don’t try to argue that with Oprah or a full-moon believer. They will blow you away!

America Self-medicating

As the Internet and social media become more widespread and influential, the problem of self-medicating seems to be growing.  The situation can range anywhere from a harmless habit to a waste of money to a dangerous health practice.

As we read scary stories about cancer and look for ways to minimize the risk, many Americans turn to over-the-counter vitamin and mineral supplements, but a new study points out the dangers of believing what we read from uninformed sources or those with a financial incentive.  A meta-analysis done by the University of Colorado reviewed “two decades worth of research -- 12 trials that involved more than 300,000 people -- and found a number of supplements actually made a person much more likely to develop certain types of cancer.” These are not rare and unusual supplements but common ones like high doses of beta carotene, selenium, vitamin E and folic acid.

In addition WebMD warns, “many supplements may interfere with your cancer treatment, so never take anything without discussing it with your cancer doctor and treatment team.”  They go on to recommend antioxidants including “vitamins A, C, and E, and selenium!  A 2010 article from ConsumerReports lists 12 dangerous supplements and also contains a table of possible side effects of some of the more common ones.  You also may be getting more than you expected from these supplements.  “In the past two years, according to the Food and Drug Administration, manufacturers have voluntarily recalled more than 80 bodybuilding supplements that contained synthetic steroids or steroid-like substances, 50 sexual-enhancement products that contained sildenafil (Viagra) or other erectile-dysfunction drugs, and 40 weight-loss supplements containing sibutramine (Meridia) and other drugs.”

As we try to rationally absorb all of this information about the dangers, articles like this one from Britain appear, telling us that a “groundbreaking two-year study discovered a combination of B vitamins and omega-3 found in oily fish prevented brain shrinkage, a hallmark of the devastating condition that develops in 550 people a day in the UK.”  Then this other website tells about five super vitamins to help fight dementia.  This list includes vitamin E and folic acid (see above).

What do people end up doing?  It appears from the fact that almost half the population takes at least one of over 65,000 supplements on the market, that they self-diagnose and self-medicate.  Encouraged by people likeDr. Oz, they constantly look forward to the next miracle product and volunteer to become their own laboratory mouse or guinea pig.  As one woman told me, “I don’t care what they say, I think my gluten-free diet makes me feel better.”  How much of this is placebo or wishful thinking?  No one knows.

This love affair with supplements and other alternative treatments is science rejected in the name of a new religion – isn't religion the belief in the absence of proof? – while deniers are ignored or reviled and sometimes treated like heretics.  Such faith-based, rather than fact-based, decision making can only be interpreted as a religion.

This would not be a problem if it were not for two things.  First, behavior has consequences - some to this stuff is just a waste of money, but some is really dangerous.  Second, the fanaticism of this new faith tends to drive out, or at least overshadow real medical science with the promise of real cures.  

Religious Extremism - A New Form

This story from a couple of years ago was mentioned again this week.  A mother asked for advice from an on-line advice column when faced with pressure from other mothers to provide only organic snacks for the children in her daughter’s playgroup.  She was surprised and insulted, and afraid of being excluded from future gatherings based on the disapproving and scolding tone of e-mails she received.

From a more recent “mommy blog” comes a similar complaint:  “Unfortunately, as of last session, I'm now the ‘bad mommy’ at Playgroup…I have been notified by society that I have some black marks on my parenting record:  I don't carry all organic snacks with me at all times…”

Another site gives advice to mothers enrolling their child in a playgroup.  “One of the first things that the other mothers will judge you on is the snacks and drinks that you bring. If you pull a few organic snacks or homemade fruit leather out of your bag, they will assume that you are a good mother.”  Merely looking up “organic snacks” and “playgroups” on the Internet yields a host of examples where the two are closely linked, playgroups and daycare list organic snacks as a benefit, almost as a requirement to be considered a responsible choice.

Now consider this recent article from the Washington Post summarizing the current science on organic foods.  It is consistent with many other sources and with all I have learned in Master Gardener training sessions and seminars.  Various food categories are discussed separately and summarized in “bottom line” sections which I have compiled below with emphasis added:

Milk – “Organic milk has higher omega-3 fat levels, but probably not enough to make a difference. Exposure to pesticides, contaminants or hormones is not a significant risk in either organic or conventional milk.”

Produce – “While there may be no significant nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce, organic does have lower levels of pesticide residue. However, there isn’t universal agreement on the risk those residues pose.”

Meat – “There doesn’t seem to be much difference, health-wise, between organic or conventional meats. Grass-fed beef has a slight edge over grain-fed because of higher omega-3 levels, but the amounts are probably too small to affect human health.”

Eggs – “There are no significant differences affecting health between organic and conventional eggs.”

Fish – “There’s not enough research comparing organic and conventional fish to draw any conclusions about their health benefits.”

In summary, there is no science to back the adamant preference.  The behavior is more of a belief system akin to some form of religious zeal, the disciples of organic trying to pressure and convert others to their faith.  I even found a sort of Bible for the movement called Above All, Be Kind: Raising a Humane Child in Challenging Times.  (Commandments are in the form of suggestions like this one:  “Start a play group for your young children…where healthy, organic snacks are offered…”)

It’s understandable when corporations spread this propaganda, but when neighbors attack neighbors for not following the same faith-based system, it amounts to nothing more than bigotry, no better than persecution of Christians or Jews; And it ought to be viewed as such and condemned with the same vigor by all those who strongly advocate for tolerance and inclusion.

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Recently a computer specialist challenged NASA in court claiming that his firing was due to his belief in and vocal defense of Intelligent Design (ID), the belief that life and the universe are too complex to have evolved.  ID backers contend that God created the universe in its current form in literally seven days and that this happened thousands, not billions of years ago.  Some organizations work to integrate science and faith to demonstrate how science affirms faith in God.  I have also heard claims that Darwin didn’t even believe in evolution.

When I hear statements about people not “believing” in evolution, I am confused.  I never thought evolution was something to be or not to be believed in.  Evolution, or more correctly the Theory of Natural Selection, is science, not religion.  Science is not about believing, science is for using.

Because they have theories to follow, scientists have been able to develop better and abundant food for our tables.  Because they have theories to follow, medical researchers have been able to develop better drugs to prevent or fight diseases.  Because they have theories to follow, we have air travel, a space station, microwaves, cell phones, refrigeration, and in-door plumbing.  Meanwhile other scientists continue to test these theories to discover flaws in their ability to predict or explain the world around us.  These flaws lead to better theories, as has happened many times in the past.  (The ancient Greeks thought there were four elements, but today we recognize 118.)  Doubting theories while using them, instead of “believing in” them, enables scientists to adapt to and not foolishly resist new discoveries.

Meanwhile ID proponents oppose the teaching of evolution in schools as a sacrilege or demand equal time in science class.  In doing so, they confuse faith with tools.  Even for scientists there is nothing wrong with asking God for help.  You can pray that you have a safe trip, but you still need to drive with care and watch out for other drivers.  You can pray that the murderer gets caught and convicted, but if the police or the jury don’t accept the validity of DNA evidence, it might not happen.  You can pray to make good decisions, but you must still use critical thinking and the tools you have available, whether they be computers, statistical evidence or scientific theories.

Faith and science are distinctly different in that they serve distinct purposes in society.  They even inform our behavior in distinct ways; one giving us a moral foundation based on our beliefs to lead good, ethical lives; the other a pragmatic foundation to use our tools toward progress.  The two must work together for us to act wisely, but the supposed conflict between them is the product of those who cannot or refuse to accept this distinction.  To continue to argue about it seems to me not only a waste of time, but a disservice to American school children who continue to lag many other countries in scientific achievement.

Science and Religion

Science and religion:  it seems Americans often get the two confused.  Religion is a matter of faith; you “believe in” certain concepts: heaven, hell, angels, salvation, God or gods, etc.  Science is pragmatic; it’s used to predict and to explain the mechanisms that drive those predictions.  Good scientists don’t “believe in” theories, in fact they often look for evidence to refine or overturn them.

The problem with getting the two mixed up is that people want to believe in or not believe in certain scientific discoveries.  They will reject findings that are contrary to what they wish were true.  Is the earth round or flat?  We have some pretty good evidence in this case, but some still choose to believe otherwise.  I have heard defenders of Intelligent Design argue that many scientists don’t “believe in” the Darwin’s theory of evolution and that it’s only a theory.  Both those statements are true, but science has nothing to do with belief and theories are valuable for their predictive power.  If they can use the knowledge developed from this theory to produce a more effective flu shot or help the police solve a crime using DNA evidence, then it’s useful.  That’s all that matters.

Now I have come across a few recent articles that people will want to argue with, primarily on the basis of preferences and beliefs.  The first was an interview with a Purdue University professor of horticulture who was asked about whether organic foods are better for you.  His answer:  “There are papers that show certain (organic) foods … are better for you and others that say (they are) not.”  Notice that only certain ones may be better.  Some people continue to justify spending more on this “maybe” situation, not having done any research or reviewed the studies, but they believe they are doing the best thing for their families.  Well, if wasting money is the best thing for your family, go for it!  Likewise there have been many studies showing that tap water, which costs less than a penny a gallon, is as good as bottled water, which is more expensive than gasoline.  Many don’t want to believe it.

In another study “researchers are finding very little benefit from these substances.”  The substances referred to are multivitamins and supplements, an industry with $20 billion in annual sales.  In addition, scientists have found some dangers.  How many Americans will rethink their habits or at least consider the possibility and how many will go along believing what they want to believe and acting accordingly?

Finally, I saw an ad in the mail for slimming briefs (formerly called a girdle) that asks:  “Are you one of the millions that believe in the power of magnetic therapy?”  Belief is required because there is no science behind it.

My question is:  Are you one of the millions who confuse science with religion?  If so, you are wasting a lot of money, money that could be spent adding value to your life instead of adding profits to companies with clever advertising tricks and bogus products.  Some things are to be believed and some are to be tested first.  We must understand the difference.