Miscellaneous Science-Related Notes
1) Lesson to be learned from the election
"Make Critical Thinking Great Again"
Credit to "Patches" on X for this idea
2) Why the Dems lost the election they thought they had "in-the-bag".
Unfortunately in the final days they believed their own distorted view of reality. They didn’t pay enough attention to opposing views. Their perspective was developed from articles filtered through Google searches in which only the ones conforming to Google’s world view are shown. Contrarian articles that don’t fit into Google’s left-leaning rosy-world get filtered out. The media similarly colors their perspective with this same distorted view of reality. Which reporter is going to risk their career by standing up and presenting a contrarian view on camera? Then the pollsters make their contribution, skewing the polls to match the distortions (look up Ann Selzer, Iowa poll, off by 16 points). The media leap on the polls to support their position. A circular feedback of distorted views. The entirety is presented to the public as if it is fact.
Apparently, enough people see through the distortions. Many have come across events in their life that do not fit the story reported on TV. To some, it happens a lot. Google searches which somehow don’t show articles you saw a few hours ago. But each time this occurs it serves to recalibrate the line between what you are told by the media and reality as you know it.
And following the same logic – This is why AI (artificial intelligence) will never work properly. If you only include the reality you agree with and exclude contrarian views, your perspective will always be distorted. Whether we are talking about science, health (vaccines), politics- literally anything- excluding contrarian views ensures failure.
It needs to be accepted that contrarian views are just as important as the majority view. They often reflect “deeper thinking” relative to the shallow insights of the TV-watching public and politicians. Ignore them at your peril. Whenever the media tell you that something was unexpected and when they say “who would have thought of that” it is quite likely that someone out there predicted it and was ignored.
Unless AI, Google and scientific publications all fully embrace contrarian perspectives they will never provide an undistorted view of reality.
3) Scientific Consensus
The media use the term "scientific consensus" to justify a certain point of view and to add support that it is "correct". The problem is that history has shown that the consensus view is often incorrect.
To quote Aaron Kheriaty, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center:
"Science is an ongoing search for truth & such truth has little to do with consensus. Every major scientific advance involves challenges to a consensus. Those who defend scientific consensus rather than specific experimental findings are not defending science but partisanship."
Most of the discoveries that I made in my career studying the inner ear went against the prevailing scientific consensus. Some were initially dismissed, but over time all have now become generally accepted. If you look back at history, many major breakthroughs also went against the consensus of the time. (Galileo anyone? Also see our history page: the ear was initially thought to be concerned only with hearing and not with balance). The consensus view (otherwise known as the current dogma) is often incorrect. Today, discussion of consensus is a method used to shut down those with opposing views. It is mostly used by narrow-minded people who don't understand science and who have difficulty reconciling multiple viewpoints. The concept that "all scientists agree" only occurs when the scientists who disagree are censored, are prevented from publishing their work by reviewers holding the majority view, or who choose to stay silent (perhaps to keep their grant funding). This is destroying science.
The reluctance to consider results that disagree with the current dogma led Max Planck to state
"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
One can only hope that those in the censorship-industrial-complex pushing false, supposedly consensus views hurry up and get on with their part.
Dissenting views should be a normal part of any discourse
Artificial Intelligence (AI) will only make the situation worse. AI is generally based on the programmer's selection of "socially-acceptable" knowledge.
As our society increasingly silences and ignores dissenting perspectives, "unexpected" outcomes (i.e. outcomes contrary to the consensus view) will occur more frequently. Critical thinking and skepticism are essential for good science.
