We See What We Want to Believe
In days gone by people believed in a slew of superstitions, call it folk mythology if you will. The antidote was science and reason, conclusions based on testable theories and by evidence. Though many think in the modern age reason has largely triumphed over superstition, there is a twisted undercurrent to this that pervades the zeitgeist. I would call it quasi-science.
I don't mean pseudo-science, "alternative" medicine, ESP, creation science and the like, but mainstream supposedly scientific beliefs. A good many people believe things that are unscientific, not based on good evidence, misinterpreted evidence, or logical fallacies, yet think these beliefs are scientific. They are essentially modern folk mythology dressed in scientific clothing. The big problem, because they think these myths are scientific beliefs, there is now no countervailing methodology to disabuse people of these notions, as was the roll of science in the past.
To give one example of how this seems to work is this from a speech by Michael Crichton, UFOs Cause Global Warming:
Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:
N x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x fL = ?
Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses -- just so we're clear -- are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing...
In the case of the Drake equation, we wind up with a formula that would be science if the values were known, but they aren't so it doesn't tell us anything. They may claim to use conservative estimates in their calculations, but if the value has no known basis then there's no good reason to suggest the "guesstimate" is conservative or wildly optimistic. Of course, looking for ET to call home, or Earth, is not that serious a question so we cut the SETI folks some slack even though they are spending taxpayer money.
On the flip side there are very big, very contentious scientific issues that matter. Take Man-made Global Warming (MGW) for instance. Never mind where you stand on the issue, -- and I am certainly not going to recount the long laundry list of arguments -- both sides argue that they are the ones acting scientifically and the other is not. Both claim the other side is misapplying science, or applying psuedo-science, or phony science or whatever.
Just like with the Drake equation, how do we arrive at the numbers to plug into the system. Does anyone really understand such a highly complex system. Do we even have a good enough understanding of what the formula should be, let alone what the values are. We wind up with multiple models with multiple numbers, all of them claiming to be scientific. We wind up with science versus science.
Or so it would seem, only both sides can't both be right. Whatever is wrong with the arguments either way is what I call quasi-science. An incorrect, unproven belief formed by what is thought to be legitimate scientific evidence, but isn't. Moreover, isn't known it isn't. Besides this quasi-science being hard to refute because the adherents believe it's scientific to begin with, there's another reason making it doubly hard; human psychology. Specifically the Confirmation Bias. This as explained by Critical Thinking Lessons.
[W]e have an automatic tendency to pay attention to or seek out information that is in agreement with (confirms) our preconceptions, and to ignore, distort or avoid information that contradicts (disconfirms) our preconceptions, a tendency that is called the confirmation bias. The confirmation bias serves to maintain and strengthen the beliefs that we already hold by causing us to automatically (that is, without being aware that we are doing so) perceive and remember experiences that confirm these beliefs, and to ignore or reinterpret those that disconfirm them. Because we tend to seek out only confirming evidence, our beliefs over time become so well confirmed in our minds that we come to think of them as "obviously true."
There are other examples of things very widely and firmly believed, but for which there is no good, established scientific evidence. Or which the evidence is ambiguous or contradicts the premise but is simply ignored or excused away. Often when a theory is tested and the evidence suggests the premise is wrong, instead of allowing the evidence to lead to a new conclusion, a new hypothesis is developed to show why the evidence is wrong. A case history of this can be seen at Spiked, The Great Cholesterol Myth.
This results in what you could call "cherry picking" the evidence. Looking only for what might support the theory and ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away contrary evidence. More or less, ignoring the elephant in the room to examine the mouse. In terms of logic this is called card stacking or the fallacy of exclusion (suppressed quantification): using selected evidence to make one's side look favorable, or omitting evidence that would undermine an argument.
In other words, "We see what we want to believe." Which is another way of expressing the logical fallacy of wishful thinking; we believe it because we want it to be true. For instance, if we admit that we can't really regulate our weight and health that much with diet, then we must admit we have no control. And so we retain the faith that we can have control over what might be mainly genetic (evidence suggest 70% of weight is genetics) because to do otherwise would be to lose hope. In such a case, this faith, this quasi-science becomes the triumph of hope over reason.
Most people consider pseudo-science the foolish beliefs of irrational fringe elements. On the other hand, quasi-science is embraced by rational people, often the scientific community itself and is therefor more insidious. Appeals to reason don't work on them, they can't see their own flaws of reasoning because they think they're already reasonable. Very weak or tenuous evidence hardens their beliefs while it takes something dramatic to dissuade them otherwise. Dramatic proof is hard to come by, and is more often than not unreported for the reasons already discussed.
But, no matter how much we ignore it or think we have proven it doesn't exist, the elephant is still in the room.
Related article: Science Legends. Things people know to be true that aren't.