WHY SO MANY PEOPLE CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE IN SCIENCE
By Vincent Lyn
Ignorance of the truth, or knowledge that is not acted upon, can be fatal. This basic principle applies at levels from personal to planetary. Fakery affects science as well as everyday social information and, since the two have become highly interactive globally, a vicious cycle is now operating on an increasing scale. The fake news/fake science cycle undermines the credibility of science and the capacity of individuals and society to make evidence-informed choices in their best interests.
At the individual level, lack of reliable knowledge about how to maintain personal physical, nutritional and health security can result in avoidable harm or death. An illustration is the child illnesses, permanent disabilities and deaths that have resulted worldwide from the fabricated scientific report that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. Despite the proven record of efficacy of vaccines in preventing infections by deadly diseases, the widespread dissemination of this lie, especially through social media, resulted not only in record levels of measles infections in Europe in 2018 but has added fuel to a growing, broader phenomenon known as ‘vaccine hesitancy’ .
At a collective level, false information can alter attitudes and policies on crucial ecological, social and political issues and, in the extreme, can place entire populations at national, regional and even global levels at risk of harm. For example, the denial of anthropogenic climate change, dismissed without counter-evidence as ‘fake science’, has resulted in the international agreement on climate change losing universal acceptance and its impact on the level of global warming is likely to have disastrous consequences worldwide in the twenty-first century. Portrayal of ethnic groups, foreigners or foreign states as enemies through fake stories is an old technique which has been given new potency by modern methods of mass communication and can provoke genocides and wars. Fake Twitter accounts have reportedly been used to send millions of messages aiming to influence attitudes towards Brexit in the 2016 U.K. referendum and views on candidates in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Awareness of the evidence that smoking causes severe illnesses and that tobacco kills up to half of its users has not yet enabled the 1.1 billion smokers around the world to quit their addiction or governments to introduce outright bans on smoking. Denial, fake news, the deliberate undermining of true data by portrayal as ‘junk science’ to distort public health policy, fabricated information, distortion of media framing and covert illicit trading have been documented in the decades-long battle by the tobacco industry and its supporters to sustain their lucrative but fatal trade.
Examples such as climate change and tobacco illustrate the difficulties that both individuals and society can have in determining what is factually correct, how to recognize the biases and vested interests that may lie behind information available and how to balance risks against benefits at personal, national and global levels.
Science denial became deadly in 2020. Many political leaders failed to support what scientists knew to be effective prevention measures. Over the course of the pandemic, people died from COVID-19 still believing it did not exist. Science denial is not new, of course. But it is more important than ever to understand why some people deny, doubt or resist scientific explanations and what can be done to overcome these barriers to accepting science.
Challenge #1: Social identity
People are social beings and tend to align with those who hold similar beliefs and values. Social media amplify alliances. You’re likely to see more of what you already agree with and fewer alternative points of view. People live in information filter bubbles created by powerful algorithms. When those in your social circle share misinformation, you are more likely to believe it and share it. Misinformation multiplies and science denial grows.
Action #1: Each person has multiple social identities. One of us talked with a climate change denier and discovered he was also a grandparent. He opened up when thinking about his grandchildren’s future, and the conversation turned to economic concerns, the root of his denial. Or maybe someone is vaccine-hesitant because so are mothers in her child’s play group, but she is also a caring person, concerned about immunocompromised children.
We have found it effective to listen to others’ concerns and try to find common ground. Someone you connect with is more persuasive than those with whom you share less in common. When one identity is blocking acceptance of the science, leverage a second identity to make a connection.
Challenge #2: Mental shortcuts
Everyone’s busy, and it would be exhausting to be vigilant deep thinkers all the time. You see an article online with a clickbait headline such as “Eat Chocolate and Live Longer” and you share it, because you assume it is true, want it to be or think it is ridiculous.
Action #2: Instead of sharing that article on how GMOs are unhealthy, learn to slow down and monitor the quick, intuitive responses that psychologist Daniel Kahneman calls System 1 thinking. Instead turn on the rational, analytical mind of System 2 and ask yourself, how do I know this is true? Is it plausible? Why do I think it is true? Then do some fact-checking. Learn to not immediately accept information you already believe, which is called confirmation bias.
Challenge #3: Beliefs on how and what you know
Everyone has ideas about what they think knowledge is, where it comes from and whom to trust. Some people think dualistically: There’s always a clear right and wrong. But scientists view tentativeness as a hallmark of their discipline. Some people may not understand that scientific claims will change as more evidence is gathered, so they may be distrustful of how public health policy shifted around COVID-19.
Journalists who present “both sides” of settled scientific agreements can unknowingly persuade readers that the science is more uncertain than it actually is, turning balance into bias. Only 57% of Americans surveyed accept that climate change is caused by human activity, compared with 97% of climate scientists, and only 55% think that scientists are certain that climate change is happening.
Action #3: Recognize that other people (or possibly even you) may be operating with misguided beliefs about science. You can help them adopt what philosopher of science Lee McIntyre calls a scientific attitude, an openness to seeking new evidence and a willingness to change one’s mind.
Recognize that very few individuals rely on a single authority for knowledge and expertise. Vaccine hesitancy, for example, has been successfully countered by doctors who persuasively contradict erroneous beliefs, as well as by friends who explain why they changed their own minds. Clergy can step forward, for example, and some have offered places of worship as vaccination hubs.
Challenge #4: Motivated reasoning
You might not think that how you interpret a simple graph could depend on your political views. But when people were asked to look at the same charts depicting either housing costs or the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over time, interpretations differed by political affiliation. Conservatives were more likely than progressives to misinterpret the graph when it depicted a rise in CO2 than when it displayed housing costs. When people reason not just by examining facts, but with an unconscious bias to come to a preferred conclusion, their reasoning will be flawed.
Action #4: Maybe you think that eating food from genetically modified organisms is harmful to your health, but have you really examined the evidence? Look at articles with both pro and con information, evaluate the source of that information, and be open to the evidence leaning one way or the other. If you give yourself the time to think and reason, you can short-circuit your own motivated reasoning and open your mind to new information.
Challenge #5: Emotions and attitudes
When Pluto got demoted to a dwarf planet, many children and some adults responded with anger and opposition. Emotions and attitudes are linked. Reactions to hearing that humans influence the climate can range from anger (if you do not believe it) to frustration (if you are concerned you may need to change your lifestyle) to anxiety and hopelessness (if you accept it is happening but think it’s too late to fix things). How you feel about climate mitigation or GMO labeling aligns with whether you are for or against these policies.
Action #5: Recognize the role of emotions in decision-making about science. If you react strongly to a story about stem cells used to develop Parkinson’s treatments, ask yourself if you are overly hopeful because you have a relative in early stages of the disease. Or are you rejecting a possibly lifesaving treatment because of your emotions?
Feelings shouldn’t (and can’t) be put in a box separate from how you think about science. Rather, it’s important to understand and recognize that emotions are fully integrated ways of thinking and learning about science. Ask yourself if your attitude toward a science topic is based on your emotions and, if so, give yourself some time to think and reason as well as feel about the issue.
Vincent Lyn
CEO/Founder at We Can Save Children
Director of Creative Development at African Views Organization
Economic & Social Council at United Nations
Middle East Correspondent at Wall Street News Agency
Rescue & Recovery Specialist at International Confederation of Police & Security Experts