Ranthropologist

Blog

  • Daily Reads: Measles Mania

    Daily Reads: Measles Mania

    Today’s Daily Read relates to the post I wrote a few days ago about how difficult it can be to convince people to accept ideas that go against their already strongly-held beliefs. I actually have two articles to share today. The first, from the Washington Post, made my eyeballs pulse with rage when I read it: it talks about a medical doctor in Arizona who has catapulted into the media spotlight because he supports anti-vaxxers. Jack Wolfson is a cardiologist who now practices holistic medicine. He supports his anti-vaccination stance with thoroughly unscientific and debunked ideas about “chemicals” in vaccines being harmful (forgetting or ignoring the fact that there are chemicals in everything); arguing that people should get viruses because they are natural (clearly he has never heard of the naturalistic fallacy – just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s good for you); and proposing that following a paleolithic diet provides enough immune protection to make vaccines unnecessary (not considering that paleolithic humans had infant mortality rates of over 50 percent, life spans of around 40 years, and suffered from boom and bust food cycles that could leave them malnourished, vitamin and mineral deficient, and prone to disease; not to mention that he hasn’t considered the fact that “paleo” diets were incredibly diverse depending on which population of ancient humans you are following. I, for one, wonder how many modern followers of paleo would go the Inuit route and eat almost nothing but raw fish and seal blubber). Of course, Wolfson has been embraced by anti-vaxxers as a champion, especially in light of the ongoing measles outbreak.

    The second article is from last year and comes from Chris Mooney of Mother Jones. I linked to it in my post from a few days ago too, but I want to bring it up again here because it discusses a study that shows how presenting anti-vaxxers with information that refutes their views causes them to embrace those views even more fervently. I include it because even though people like Wolfson make me want to pelt them with facts and studies, I have to remind myself that the backfire effect, as detailed in Mooney’s article, makes this approach futile. Fortunately there is some new research that is looking into how to approach these issues in a way that makes people receptive to new information, but so far, it seems that most people are still yelling past each other and not changing any minds at all.

    Amid measles outbreak, anti-vaccine doctor revels in his notoriety

    Study: You Can’t Change an Anti-Vaxxer’s Mind

  • Chipping Away

    Chipping Away

    Last Sunday, I was fortunate to attend a lecture featuring Bill Nye the Science Guy, hosted by the Skeptic Society. Bill Nye was terrific in both his brief opening remarks and in conversation with Skeptic Society president Michael Shermer. Nye was there to promote his new book, Undeniable, in which he succinctly lays out the case for evolution. I was thrilled to be there in the company of my dad, sister, uncle, and friends – fellow skeptics and critical thinkers all. Yet, I was disquieted by the notion that the lecture hall was filled with similarly-minded people – not the people Bill Nye is trying to convince with his book. So when the opportunity came, I stood up to ask a question, which was this: when the people reading books by authors like Nye and Shermer are the ones who already agree, how are we supposed to reach the people who don’t agree?

    This is a more complicated question than it seems. Research has shown that when people are deeply committed to their beliefs, being exposed to factual information that refutes their views actually makes people embrace them even more tenaciously than before. This is known as the “backfire effect.” In the face of that response, a book aimed at changing people’s minds is unlikely to have any effect. This troubles me. If providing a climate change denier, anti-vaccine campaigner, or creationist with facts is only going to make them dig in their heels, then what chance do we have of convincing people? Bill Nye did have an answer, of sorts; he asked how many people in the audience were atheist or agnostic, and nearly every hand in the hall went up. He then asked how many of those people were raised in what they considered to be a religious household, and again, nearly every hand went up. His answer, then, was essentially to keep chipping away; and understandably, given that his career as the Science Guy was focused on science education for children, to educate the next generation.

    I wish Nye had been able to offer something more concrete, but I don’t blame him for that. How are we supposed to overcome such deeply ingrained psychological patterns? Of course, it doesn’t help that there is a false equivalence given to the non-factual side in many of these debates. This logical fallacy holds that when there is disagreement on an issue, equal weight must be given to both sides of the debate. This seems like a fair thing to do, but when one position has the lion’s share of facts and evidence on its side, it actually harms the debate to pretend that the other side’s argument is of equivalent merit. This was illustrated beautifully – and hilariously – by John Oliver, with the help of none other than Bill Nye. Citing the fact that 97% of climate scientists agree that the world is warming and that human activity is to blame, Oliver argued that in debates, the climate deniers should get three representatives – and the climate scientists get 97. He showed this visually by seating three deniers on one side of the table, and Bill Nye on the other… along with 96 other scientists! It is worth watching the video clip to see how this plays out.

    This false equivalence extends to many other debates – and interestingly Bill Nye was accused by some of doing a disservice to the science of evolution by engaging in a debate with creationist Ken Ham, thereby creating the illusion of equivalence. That may or may not be true; for my part, I thought the debate was so lopsided in Nye’s favor that it was nearly comical; but then again, I hold very strongly to my “belief” in evolution, so perhaps nothing Ham said could change my mind! Of course, I have the advantage of facts and the scientific method on my side, so my “belief” is truly irrelevant; the same claim cannot be made by Ham or other creationists. But that false equivalence may still be convincing to some people, and when it comes to issues like climate change and vaccination, the media are doing the public a tremendous disservice by treating both sides as if they are the same.

    As a critical thinker, skeptic, anthropologist, and educator, I can only keep doing as the Science Guy suggests and continue to chip away at irrational beliefs, logical fallacies, and uncritical acceptance of unsupported ideas, and hope that by chipping away we can eventually sculpt a better informed populace.

  • Daily Reads: Got Water?

    Daily Reads: Got Water?

    Here’s a great idea from some folks in Oregon: use the treated wastewater produced from sewage to brew beer. Writing on the NPR blog The Salt, Cassandra Profita discusses the process by which clean, drinkable water can be produced from sewage sludge. Although Oregon does not approve this water for consumption, a new experiment is allowing small craft brewers to use this water in their beer. This is a terrific idea. People get grossed out by the idea that the water came from sewage, but as I have written about before, this is a mental and cultural block. There is no reason to fear drinking water that has been reclaimed from waste; consider the fact that most of our municipal water sits in reservoirs filled with fish and plant matter, as well as trash, fuel and oil residue from boats, and other unsavory flotsam and jetsam. That water goes through the same treatment process as wastewater. So why not use it? Drought conditions and continued water scarcity means we need to look at every option, and as far as I can tell there is no downside here.

    Why Dump Treated Wastewater When You Could Make Beer With It?

  • Daily Reads: Underpolicing

    Daily Reads: Underpolicing

    In this very thought-provoking article in the Wall Street Journal, author Jill Leovy writes about what she calls the “underpolicing of Black America.” Leovy, who is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times and the author of the book Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America (from which this article is adapted) argues counterintuitively that focusing on non-violent petty crimes such as loitering, vandalism, and public drunkenness in minority neighborhoods – the so-called “broken windows” method of policing – distracts attention from violent crimes such as assault, robbery, and murder. In other words, the police go after the “low-hanging fruit” and ignore the more difficult to solve crimes. This makes it seem as if the police are cracking down on crime in underprivileged neighborhoods because they can boast of high arrest rates; but it also teaches the community that violent crimes are unlikely to be investigated and are therefore easier to commit. Leovy argues, provocatively, that the police harassment of Blacks and other minorities against which so many are now protesting is actually cloaking a larger injustice: a weak police presence in those neighborhoods that allows for larger-scale violence. As she puts it, “Today’s controversial policing tactics are part of a law enforcement model in which prevention is everything and vigorous response an afterthought. Officers are better at stopping people at random than at tracking down those who do real harm; they are better at arrest sweeps than at investigating major crimes.” The result is that these communities see the police as wielders of state-level control rather than as campaigners for justice, and serious offenders are able to continue operating with near-impunity.

    The Underpolicing of Black America

  • Daily Reads: Statistical Inequality

    Daily Reads: Statistical Inequality

    Today’s read uses a specific example to highlight a broader problem that concerns me: the misleading use of statistics. Ezra Klein’s article from Vox discusses a recent statistic from Oxfam which states that the combined wealth of the richest 1% will be greater than the combined wealth of the remaining 99% within the next year. Taken by itself, this is indeed an alarming statistic, but as Klein illustrates, you have to drill down into Oxfam’s methodology to really see what this statistic is telling us. The article spells it out in detail, but the upshot is that the criteria used by Oxfam to calculate wealth takes into account debt as well as assets. What this means is that a poor rural resident of an underdeveloped part of the world who has no debt is considered “wealthier” than a resident of a developed nation whose debt exceeds her income. In other words, by Oxfam’s calculations, you could be making $150,000 a year – but if you owe $500,000 on a mortgage, you have a negative net wealth, which means you are “poor.”

    It’s well worth reading this article to see what calculations went into the statistic, and for Klein’s analysis of what we can learn from the overall Oxfam report. I have no doubt that inequality is an enormous global problem – but even when a statistic seems to support my position I want to make sure I am understanding that stat correctly. Sure, stats can make great soundbites, but I wish more people would make sure they knew what the stats they quote really mean.

    Be careful with that viral statistic about the top 1% owning half the world’s wealth

  • Daily Reads: Everybody Poops

    Daily Reads: Everybody Poops

    Ok, so maybe an article about poop isn’t the most important or thought-provoking thing in the world, but I thought it was pretty interesting. I definitely learned some things about the process of elimination, so to speak! Joseph Stromberg of Vox talks about 9 different things you may not know about poop. I knew most of these things already, but the list filled in some gaps in my knowledge – for example, although it makes sense in hindsight, I did not realize there were some fairly significant differences in male vs. female colorectal anatomy. So if you are looking for some bathroom reading, this article is the one to read the next time nature calls.

    Everybody poops. But here are 9 surprising facts about feces you may not know.