Viewing entries in
Scientific Encounters
This post was going to compare police response times (RTs) in the ten most dangerous US cities with the RTs of the safest cities (link). Unfortunately, none of the dangerous cities had decent RT data, except for Oakland, California. But we’re in luck! Oakland has great data, not only for RTs but also for police staffing levels, both across several years.
1. Curiosity …
There is no hard-and-fast threshold for an acceptable clearance rate. That said, Oakland’s rate is abysmal. No wonder Oakland’s the most dangerous city in the US!
These posts will explore factors that are thought to influence violent crime rates, such as police response times, clearance rates, conviction rates, sentencing norms, and demographics. I will limit my exploration to the 10 safest and 10 most dangerous cities listed in the above chart, the better to reveal patterns of influence. Hopefully, these cities keep good records.
The authors don’t tell us why Medicare and insurers are increasingly relying on prior authorization, nor do they address the prevalence of unnecessary or low-value medical care or the risks associated with such care. That’s a huge omission. Potential harms should be weighed against potential benefits, the better to find solutions that preserve benefits while reducing harm. As for the prevalence and risk of unnecessary and low-value care, evidence suggests that up to one-fifth of healthcare spending is wasted on such care and around 10% of patients are harmed in the process.
“False consciousness [is] the notion that people are so misled about reality that they act against their own interests. What was once the preserve of Marxists, flummoxed that workers refused to lose their capitalist chains, is now the fall-back position for the modern [left], which worries that voters cannot accurately comprehend the world in which they live.” - Are voters as clueless as Labour’s intelligentsia thinks? The Economist, November 30, 2024.
These survey results reveal broad support for a get-tough approach to crime before 2000. Then, as the crime rate dropped, American attitudes softened - until crime rates rose again, a trend the following chart documents…
The FBI’s crime rates are based on arrests, whereas people in these states’ Criminal Legal System have been convicted of crimes. What I’d like to see is how much arrest rates diverge from conviction rates, and why they diverge, e.g., plea deals, diversion programs, prosecutorial discretion/approach to criminal justice, overzealous police over-arresting without sufficient evidence, etc. I imagine the prevalence of these various factors vary according to state, jurisdiction and local politics.
Does that mean science writers should avoid expressing opinions regarding the significance of whatever they’re writing about? No, but they should do so in the spirit of science: with an abundance of caution and plenty of hedging. Above all, they need to take care not to mislead or exaggerate.
Evidence is information that serves to support or counter a proposition about reality. If objective reality exists, then we can get closer to its truth through the gathering and evaluation of evidence. Evaluating evidence is a kind of interrogation. For example, one could “interrogate” opinion pieces, news analyses, and science stories with questions like…
If we made such questioning a habit, the better we’d get at glimpsing bits of the world as it is, rather than how we want or expect it to be.
In another study, participants who reported trust in science were more likely to believe and disseminate false claims that contain scientific references than false claims that do not. The study authors conclude that ‘trust in science, although desirable in many ways, makes people vulnerable to pseudoscience” (O'Brien, Palmer, et al., 2021).
“Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown “it’s just a theory.” This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: In common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations.” - from How Science Works
Mmm…pretty steady in the confidence department until around 2017, then a downward trend, accelerating since 2020. I put the “civil unrest” lines in the chart to see if confidence in police dipped after periods of anti-police civil unrest. No pattern there until 2020, when high confidence responses dipped 5 points over the period of 2020 - 2023.
There actually have been people and movements that were more broadly antiscience than today’s this-or-that skeptics: what we used to call “new age” types, e.g., members of religious cults and believers in the occult. In his oft-cited 1993 book Science and Anti-Science, Gerald Holton mentions “interest in astrology” as indicative of antiscience beliefs, as least as “conventionally” understood (his word).
So the author defines antiscience as the rejection of mainstream scientific views and their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories. What does that even mean? Science is a process that moves forward by questioning received wisdom. Does “rejection” encompass doubt or criticism? At what point would a theory be considered “proven”? . And why all the ad hominen verbiage (“deliberating misleading”, “nefarious”)? Can’t people just disagree without being accused of bad faith?
The inspiration for this post came from reading a bunch of articles on how to combat “antiscience”. Each one cautioned against trying to reason or debate scientific issues with people who hold antiscience views. Rather, one should try to relate to their emotions and social needs, e.g., be warm, tell stories, find common ground, establish a connection. Above all, don’t acknowledge their ideas have any merit.
And I thought: don’t any of these authors know about the “persuasive backfire effect”? Here’s a brief review…
“Antiscience is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge...Lack of trust in science has been linked to the promotion of political extremism and distrust in medical treatments…for some, rejecting scientific consensus or public health guidance serves as an expression of political allegiance or skepticism towards perceived authority figures.” Wikipedia
Hmm…
“Science is broadly understood as collecting, analyzing, publishing, reanalyzing, critiquing, and reusing data.” Wikipedia,
In other words, science is a process. More specifically, science is a self-correcting process for deepening our understanding of the world. It is a process that comes with safeguards to minimize error. Data is the direct outcome of that process.
What would you consider the “science” in these scenarios? What science would you trust? What leads you to trust one science claim and not another? If the credibility of the source, how do you determine the credibility of a source? …
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden was among the few countries that did not enforce strict lockdown measures but instead relied more on voluntary and sustainable mitigation recommendations. While supported by the majority of Swedes, this approach faced rapid and continuous criticism. Unfortunately, the respectful debate centered around scientific evidence often gave way to mudslinging. However, the available data on excess all-cause mortality rates indicate that Sweden experienced fewer deaths per population unit during the pandemic (2020–2022) than most high-income countries and was comparable to neighboring Nordic countries through the pandemic. An open, objective scientific dialogue is essential for learning and preparing for future outbreaks.” - The Swedish COVID-19 approach: a scientific dialogue on mitigation policies, Björkman et al, 2023