• Markets
• Economy
• Federal Reserve
• Housing
• Energy
• Digital Media

Variant Perception in Science

I love finding disconnects in the market (i.e.,the PPI data today);

Unfortunately, the people who fail to understand what the scientific methodology entails are pressing in the political realm -- rather than in the market place. We have seen they dare not try their silly little stunts in the peer reviewed scientific sphere.

If only these people were investors -- we would be emptying their bank accounts!

In politics, perception is reality, and so, for the most part, the penalty for deviating from reality is de minimus.

In the stock market, you cannot create your own reality -- at least not for long. Eventually, the market place comes around to the numerical facts -- i.e economics, revenues, and earnings.

For example:  In surveys conducted in 2005, people in the United States and 32 European countries (The same question was posed to Japanese adults in 2001). 

Respondants were asked whether to respond “true,” “false” or “not sure” to this statement:

“Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.”

It turns out that the United States had the second-highest percentage of adults who said the statement was false -- and the second-lowest percentage who said the statement was true, researchers reported in the current issue of Science. (Only adults in Turkey expressed more doubts on evolution).

What is the penalty for this belief system? Well, you probably won't get a Science-based job -- but that's about it.

The acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States.

That -- and the lack of any sort of financial or societal disincentive for the belief system. At least  so far . . .

>

UPDATE August 16, 2006 6:26am

Some questions in the comments require a bit of schooling: 

Understand what the Scientific Method is: It is a body of techniques for investigating natural phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

It posits theories which are used until better theories come along. Example: Gravity is a theory that works so well we assume it to be a fact. And if one day a better theory of gravitation comes along that predicts the motion of bodies and interaction of masses better than the present one, well then we will throw out the old theory and replace it with the better one. 

Scientific Method assumes that its theories are subject to revision as additional evidence is acquired. No axioms are invioable, every thesis is subject to rigorous testing and peer review; Every theory is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.

All the acquired data are collectively called scientific evidence.

>

Source:
Did Humans Evolve? Not Us, Say Americans            
NYT, August 15, 2006               
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/science/sciencespecial2/15evo.html

The Evolution Debate: Complete Coverage   
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/sciencespecial2/index.html

Public Acceptance of Evolution            
Science, 11 August 2006:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765

See also: How to Make Sure Children Are Scientifically Illiterate         

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 | 05:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (121) | TrackBack (3)
add to de.li.cious | digg this! | add to technorati | email this post

Comments

Oh please Barry, can't we talk about inflation and truck prices?? Had any good wines lately? How was Vail?

Posted by: fred hooper | Aug 15, 2006 6:48:05 PM

Interesting. So are you suggesting (at the end) that belief is just a response to incentives, Freakonomics style? Am I going to church on Sunday and believing in an Afterlife mostly because of some incentives that are presented to me by the portion of the world that I am exposed to? Oh, the philospophy! And there heresy! I love it!

Posted by: Sherman McCoy | Aug 15, 2006 7:00:30 PM

The acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States.

Dont forget our poor educational system. A few whackos aside, evolution is in the curriculum of our public schools.

Posted by: sw | Aug 15, 2006 7:02:50 PM

“Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.”

Is is just me or does anyone else have any quibble with the statement's wording? Heck, I believe in evolution, and I'm not sure how I would answer this question. What does "as we know them" mean? Sounds like a trick--a red herrring phrase! And..."developed from earlier species of animals"....that's a little unclear. Some folks might be okay with our evolving from monkey's but not quite bought into the fish from water story. So they may be quasi evolutionists. Drawing any conclusions, scientific or otherwise, from such a poorly crafted question with only the bifurcated choices of true/false, is, well, unscientific.

Posted by: Leisa | Aug 15, 2006 7:14:46 PM

I wonder if the evolution statistics coorelate over time with Bush/Republican approval ratings. Since the later has gone down down down lately, has belief in evolution done so too? If there is a coorelation, it would have some serious implications...

Posted by: Sherman McCoy | Aug 15, 2006 7:24:02 PM

link: the tree of knowledge of good and evil

Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | Aug 15, 2006 7:28:04 PM

All the Atheist must live in Iceland.

Posted by: Cherry | Aug 15, 2006 7:38:01 PM

---
All the Atheist must live in Iceland.
---

And universities.

Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | Aug 15, 2006 7:42:30 PM

re the link betw Evolution/Creationism and Bush popularity: Kansas voters just threw out the Creationist majority on the state's school board. happy days are here again

Posted by: scorpio | Aug 15, 2006 7:47:54 PM

...and in spite of the failure to acknowledge evolution by a significant portion of the American population, it is (arguably) the most successful, free and innovative nation on earth.

Perhaps belief in evolutionary theory is a drawback rather than a benefit to a society.

Posted by: Tristram | Aug 15, 2006 7:55:34 PM

I still cannot believe that so called educated people subscribe to 'evolution' as a scientific 'fact'. First and foremost because it seems rather ignorant to associate scientific findings with inexorable truths, or in this particular case, demonstrable facts. Evolution is merely a theory, from the Greek 'to see'--an educated point of view that just so happens to fail the most basic scientific test: that of being reproducible (go read Sir Francis Bacon's book if you don't get this). While admittedly it has been very productive, it is neither internally coherent nor is it conclusive. The joys of skepticism, something that I had thought you enjoyed yourself, Barry, would lead to a contrarian position. The better question, I maintain, is not whether the theory of Evolution is 'right' or 'wrong', accurate or inaccurate, but rather what is it preventing us from seeing?
In addition, for the unlearned among you, I think that it is important to keep in mind that theories are explanatory narratives for perceived behaviors that attempt to align causes and effects. In the end, just as David Hume ( make my day; try reading this one) pointed out, since cause and effect are not sensations that we can actually experience, they don't really 'exist'. Thus, in the end, both science and economics can wield theories that prove more or less accurate in their respective forecasting, they can never be correct all of the time; it is always a question of degrees of accuracy, never accuracy as such.
Finally, I just want to comment on the following: "In the stock market, you cannot create your own reality -- at least not for long. Eventually, the market place comes around to the numerical facts -- i.e. economics, revenues, and earnings."
I can hardly believe you of all people could write this! What would you say about going off the gold standard? Fractional Reserve Banking? Inflation? LTCM??? The ground that you have attempted to lay for the markets here, that there is indeed a cause and effect relationship within the market itself, is ridiculous. If it were any other way, than you would never loose money, now would you? The irrationality of the market, its inherent instability, the market's inability to correctly price capital correctly ALL OF THE TIME is precisely the greatest vehicle for making money known to man. Still think you have the best site out there though...

Posted by: Darin | Aug 15, 2006 7:57:34 PM

Who needs evolution when a chimp can get elected President of the United States?

Posted by: semper fubar | Aug 15, 2006 8:04:55 PM

Good stuff Darin! Especially your query "What would you say about going off the gold standard? Fractional Reserve Banking? Inflation? LTCM??? "

Did you see that great little post I wrote on US debts and bankruptcy? Wanna talk trucks and inflation? Had any good wines lately? I'm into gold, freeze dried foods, guns and ammo. How about you?

Posted by: fred hooper | Aug 15, 2006 8:06:34 PM

Y'all who are interested in the "intelligent design" issue should listed to Kurt Vonnegut's NPR interview from January if you've never heard it. He makes some interesting comments.

Posted by: Sherman McCoy | Aug 15, 2006 8:08:08 PM

This is simple.

If you are interested in solutions to various health and reproductive issues, or perhaps in profiting from companies located in places where experts in these fields may be located, you can be sure it won't be in the good Ol' U.S. of A, but in one of the countries at the top of the list.

The point is this: The markets will decide this question too. Maybe it isn't as immediate as not getting a job as a geneticist or genetic engineer, but over time the countries that don't confuse repeatable science with faith will win that race in the marketplace. Their quality of life will increase as will their return from investment, while those who do not invest in science because they confuse science and faith will repeat the same pattern we see in the Middle East.

Posted by: Craig | Aug 15, 2006 8:11:35 PM

There are a lot of good reasons to invest overseas. I'm about 60% overseas myself. Stuff like this isn't the biggest reason but is one of them.

Posted by: Brian | Aug 15, 2006 8:23:21 PM

Ok, where's Byno? I expected him on here by now to debate the posters blowing holes in evolution.

I really don't think many people believe God showed up and POOF there were people. I'm sure of that regardless of what they say. Someone who goes to church weekly is going to repress their doubts, which nearly everyone of every faith has and answer with their heart not their head. So, these polls are useless bullshit. It doesn't mean Americans are stupid or mystics or driven by fundamentalist wackos. What it might mean is Americans are more hopeful than the rest of the world. There is no doubt in my mind that there is truly something special about this country with all of its political problems and blathering by permabears we are going under.

There is absolutely no place else on earth sans maybe Canada, the fifty first state, where people truly accept all comers IN GENERAL. Europe is steeped in deep racism and ethnic classes for immigrants unable to truly assimilate and the rest of the world is devoid of the melting pot concept.

So, view it for what it more likely is. America is truly a land of hope. Hope springs from the heart. Culturally, we would answer the question differently.

Oh, and while I have said in our philosophical debates that I believe in evolution, that is such as simple answer. The really intriguing question is why? The question scientists and philosophers ask every day. One in one hundred billion billion? There is much we do not know AND I AM NOT defending the kooky intelligent design right wingers but it is an intriguing question. At least for me.

Posted by: BDG123 | Aug 15, 2006 8:29:34 PM

"Interesting. So are you suggesting (at the end) that belief is just a response to incentives, Freakonomics style? Am I going to church on Sunday and believing in an Afterlife mostly because of some incentives that are presented to me by the portion of the world that I am exposed to? Oh, the philospophy! And there heresy! I love it!"

Actually, yes, unless you somehow avoided parental indoctrination until about 8 years old, then YES, your belief, like most of us, was a result of incentives ("THIS is our house and you will go to church MISTER", or variations on that theme) to get along in the world presented to you by your parents. Unless your parents spent your first seven years discussing their a-theism and their lack of an explanation. This could have happened but isn't usually the norm.

Usually we get the full compliment...God in some form, Santa (or?) Easter Bunny,Tooth Fairy, etc. all before seven, and magically they all get explained (or embarassed) away around seven years old. Well, almost all of them.

Posted by: Craig | Aug 15, 2006 8:41:44 PM

While this is a topic that will get most people labeled a kook, I have to agree with Darin. For a good old fashioned atheistic debunking, Richard deMille wrote a piece for National Review about 7 years ago.

Posted by: M.Z. Forrest | Aug 15, 2006 8:44:05 PM

From the shrill blond harpy one herself:

"Throw in enough words like imagine, perhaps, and might have -- and you've got yourself a scientific theory! How about this: Imagine a giant raccoon passed gas and perhaps the resulting gas might have created the vast variety of life we see on Earth. And if you don't accept the giant raccoon flatulence theory for the origin of life, you must be a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes the Earth is flat. That's basically how the argument for evolution goes.

This, my friends, is what makes its way onto the New York Times best seller list.

Posted by: S | Aug 15, 2006 8:51:08 PM

Just say no!

Sorry, couldn't resist...

It is indeed an intriguing question B, but not one that popular religion cares about answering. Especially in the US. Hate to say it, but the poster boy for American faith is this guy. Stuart Smalley, Tom Vu and Dr. Phil all rolled into one.

Posted by: trader75 | Aug 15, 2006 8:53:20 PM

Barry: Being or becoming?

But we've come to see that life is both, no?

What am I on about? This comment: "In the stock market, you cannot create your own reality -- at least not for long. Eventually, the market place comes around to the numerical facts -- i.e economics, revenues, and earnings."

I'm thinking about Soros' REFLEXIVITY. And Roosevelt: "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." Poincare resonances and activation of dormant characteristics of DNA.

The comment smacks of a Newtonian model that is but a specific case in more general theories.

Short and squeezed, hoping market does not create it's own reality but recognizing it can and does.

Posted by: BKE | Aug 15, 2006 8:59:07 PM

Barry
Why did ya have to bring up evolution? Didn't ya know truthiness would always win?

Posted by: tyoung | Aug 15, 2006 9:16:57 PM

The better question, I maintain, is not whether the theory of Evolution is 'right' or 'wrong', accurate or inaccurate, but rather what is it preventing us from seeing?

Come on man... that may be a better philosophical question, but it isn't exactly good science, or any kind of science at all for that matter. Evolution is accepted by many well-educated people as fact because the evidence is so wide-ranging and interlocking as to be deeply compelling.

To say that evolution fails the test of reproducibility is a ridiculous charge; all theories of that which happened in the distant past are irreproducible. Any possible alternatives to evolution would be irreproducible too.

It's good that you mention Hume and the sense in which cause and effect don't exist; thus you demonstrate the danger of nihilism in dismissing a body of evidence because the conclusion is not to one's liking. It's possible to be skeptical about literally ANYthing, including cause / effect and logic itself, and this makes arbitrary skepticism a copout mechanism. Whether you agree with evolution or not, the decision should be based on a reasonable assessment of available evidence, not an impossible standard of irrefutable proof which, as Hume showed, doesn't exist for anything.

Your reminder that all scientific theories are 'just' explanatory narratives applies to some pretty useful stuff--like the theory of gravity for example, or theories used in engineering and medicine to build buildings and save people's lives. Again, the nihilist problem: all knowledge, at some point, is just a string of explanatory narratives. So what, we can't go around doubting everything. That way madness lies. But nor should we pick and choose what to believe based on personal whim; that way inconsistency lies.

Evolutionary theory has demonstrated its worth in the real world too, by way of confirmed predictions and useful application at the molecular biology level. If we figure out how to cure cancer and alzheimers, or manufacture organic fossil fuel replacements with no carbon dioxide component, I guarantee you evolutionary theory will play a helpful role in the process. If that's not confirmation of value, I'm not sure what is.

Posted by: trader75 | Aug 15, 2006 9:17:09 PM

---
an educated point of view that just so happens to fail the most basic scientific test: that of being reproducible
---

So you believe 'irreproducibility' is indistinguishable from 'reproducibility over geologic time'?

Let's say an unbroken line scientists document their observations over 3 million years, and during this time they clearly establish a number of speciation events; in what sense do you maintain that this has not reproduced the essentials of evolution?

Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | Aug 15, 2006 9:24:43 PM

December 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31