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…
Viewing entries in
Scientific Encounters
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
“It is an increasingly familiar experience. A request for help to a large language model such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT is promptly met by a response that is confident, coherent and just plain wrong. In an AI model, such tendencies are usually described as hallucinations. A more informal word exists, however: these are the qualities of a great bullshitter… The fundamental problem is that language models are probabilistic, while truth is not.” - AI models make stuff up. How can hallucinations be controlled? The Economist February 28, 2024
“If a Buddhist Newton had been sitting under that tree, he would have seen the apple falling and, reaching for Enlightenment, experienced each moment of its descent as a thing pure in itself. Only a restless Western Newton would say, “Now, what story can tell us best what connects those apple-moments from branch to ground? Sprites? Magnets? The mysterious force of the mass of the earth beneath it? What made the damn thing fall?” That’s a story we tell, not a moment we experience.” - Adam Gopnik, What Meditation Can Do for Us, and What It Can’t: Examining the science and supernaturalism of Buddhism.
Actually, “findings” is too strong a word. The data is all self-report and thus subject to desirability bias. The homeless individuals in the study know the researchers want the intervention to be successful. They form relationships with the “phone buddies” who ask them all these questions. I imagine some participants would hesitate to tell the whole truth and nothing but.
In previous posts I’ve explored the relation between violent crime and incarceration rates in the US, which got me wondering: how much do incarceration rates reflect violent crime rates in other countries? Hence, this exploration - and I stress ‘exploration’, because good data is hard to come by and cross-country comparisons can be misleading. For example, countries may not define criminal offenses the same way or have different levels of unreported crime. But iffy data can still reveal real patterns, provided the numbers aren’t not too far off. With that hope in mind, I decided to check out the data and see what patterns I could find.
This post includes excerpts from a Campbell systematic review of surveys and studies on the impact of school-based law-enforcement strategies, followed by a few observations of my own.
Of course, causes rarely work like that in the real world, which is why scientists speak such in such convoluted terms. To say “x partly accounts for a portion of y given certain assumptions and conditions and only at high levels of x” lacks the emotional bunch of “x causes y” but that’s often how the world works.
So when people say x is the cause, or the ultimate cause, or the root cause, of some phenomenon: doubt and try to disconfirm the proposition - with a Wason test.