16/01/2019 Who Decides What Is True?

– Medium

Who Decides What Is True?

How Does Science Proceed from Hypothesis to Fact to
Common Knowledge?

mtobis Follow
Jun 10, 2016 · 9 min read

Simulation of the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs

There’s no Supreme Court of Truth, no supreme authority that a xes

an imprimatur of “scienti c fact”.

Yet we believe many things to be true which we could not have known
about without science. It’s obvious that science can draw conclusions
which are e ectively certain, but it’s less than obvious how this
happens.

For example, we believe that the Milky Way is the vast cloud of solar
systems of which our own is a member, itself one of a vast number of
galaxies in the universe. If you encounter someone whose beliefs about
reality require this to be false, (a at earth for instance) you are
justi ed in dismissing those beliefs without further consideration. A
worldview based on something contradictory to established fact is one
that is not viable.

But this fact, though common knowledge nowadays, was unheard of

two centuries ago (when, apparently, Immanuel Kant rst proposed it).
How did what was once a wild speculation turn into an established
fact?

https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd 1/9
16/01/2019 Who Decides What Is True? – Medium

It Matters
It turns out that this isn’t merely an academic question.

We’re in an increasingly complex world, which requires increasingly

complex collective decisions. If we avoid magical thinking, it seems
clear that getting the facts right is, while hardly su cient, at least
necessary.

Nowadays, the public is constantly subjected to “zombie arguments”,

recycled scienti c controversies, long-settled within science, which
retain their currency in the public consciousness. This confusion derails
e orts to act e ectively, even when the information available may be
unambiguous within science.

The public is also somewhat confused about how science establishes

facts. Some believe that once a paper passes peer review, it is
established as “true”, on an equal epistemic footing with every other
paper unless proven “false”. “False” papers are then considered a mark
of shame, of negligence if not actual dishonesty. “Bad” papers are
considered “refuted” or even “debunked”.

This is actually not far from the truth in publications in some

engineering elds. One reports on actual achievements; one avoids lies
and error. There’s little room for honestly, competently wrong in
reporting the e cacy of an invention.

In a science in its most delightful phase, though, when much of

consequence is known and much remains unknown, a number of
di erent explanations for phenomena may be considered and
defended. Barking up the wrong tree is a perfectly legitimate
contribution, as much can be learned from considering whether the
prey (the bird of Truth?) is there or elsewhere.

But eventually, truth does emerge.

A Recent Progression from Hypothesis to Common

Knowledge
We can consider a recent example — the speculation that an asteroid
strike was responsible for the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction, rst
proposed by Luis and Walter Alvarez in 1980. There was plenty of back
and forth in the literature and at paleontology conferences for thirty
years, but this theory was eventually considered established.

https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd 2/9
16/01/2019 Who Decides What Is True? – Medium

Interestingly, there was actually a sort of formal declaration of victory

in this spectacular case, a paper jointly authored by many of the most
respected practitioners of relevant sciences. One thing to take from this
is that there are papers and there are Papers; some are more in uential
than others, based on the scope of the research and the backgrounds of
the authors. Often the most important watershed papers have multiple
authors from multiple research groups. As in the asteroid case, they
sometimes exist merely to ratify a consensus that has emerged within a
eld. Such a report (and arguably IPCC reports on climate change are
in this class) cannot create a consensus. It can merely muster the
evidence for its acceptance.

The consensus emerges within the relevant scienti c community,

which then presents it to the world.

Formalization of Consensus Follows Creation of

Consensus
Massively credentialed review articles, and the next step up, formal
consensus documents, appear mostly in cases where there is a
community of practice or a segment of the public that is interested in
the results.

But consensus appears rst, sometimes invisibly. Important

generalizations can emerge without representation in formal
communications at all.

It’s notable how informal the consensus process can be.

For instance, during the (all-too-brief from my point of view) period

when I was privileged to attend paleoclimate lectures at the University
of Chicago, it became entirely clear to me how central CO2 greenhouse
warming variation has been to the climate trajectory of the Earth. I
found myself making the claim that “you really can’t sensibly think
about paleoclimate without the greenhouse e ect of CO2 — it just
would drain all the sense out of the eld” in an online conversation,
and was challenged to defend it to a reasonably scienti cally literate
non-climatologist. I struggled to nd a reference, and came up empty.

Fortunately, some years later, Richard Alley stepped up to the plate, in

this, one of my favorite climate lectures of all time: “The Biggest
Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”. (Set aside an
hour to watch it if you have any interest in climate of any sort!) So it’s
not as if I didn’t have a point. I just couldn’t nd a credible source for
the claim, a claim which from where I was sitting “everybody knows”.

https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd 3/9
16/01/2019 Who Decides What Is True? – Medium

It hadn’t ever been formally asserted in peer review. Yet it was, and is,
an established fact as far as science is concerned.

Consensus as a Social Process

When we consider how a hypothesis becomes accepted as a fact, it
seems there are two phases to consider: 1) how does a genuine
scienti c consensus emerge within the community of experts and 2)
how is society to recognize it when it does?

I argue that both phases are neither as purely logical as some would
hope, nor as purely social as some adamantly insist.

In fact pure evidence is weighed in a highly social process.

Such weighing still works well enough in the sciences, though it is

under systematic assault. But the second phase, the transition of
socially relevant scienti c consensus to public consensus, appears to be
breaking down.

Politics Disrupts the Consensus Process

Once a certain level of coherence of evidence for a proposition exists in
a real science, it is as good as true for any practical purposes.

In the ordinary course of science, the blind alleys are quietly

abandoned, and the more stubborn advocates of doomed theories, who
refuse to adapt to a new consensus, are allowed to age into emeritus
status with a modicum of dignity.

This social process is adequate and, at least arguably, civilized. For most
purposes it works.

Recently, though, when policy is at stake and interests are threatened

by consensus science, the scienti c consensus is challenged. Then, less
scienti cally in uential, less e ective scientists can become important.

People who continue to advocate theories that are essentially outside

the scienti c community’s collective view of plausibility can suddenly
attain a market value. That is, if a scienti c result suggests a policy
change, those whose interests are directly threatened are motivated to
nd credentialed scientists who appear to disagree.

Of course, credentials are not really a proof of credibility. While the

most active participants tend to have excellent credentials, getting

https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd 4/9
16/01/2019 Who Decides What Is True? – Medium

published is more a matter of tirelessness and persistence than of

brilliance.

And so rather than fading into obscurity, the careers of some second-
rate scientists get a boost. They are formed into a sort of ad hoc
committee of denial.

Agnotropist Science
I don’t say this because they are “denialists” in the usual sense. They are
not advocating a position in de ance of evidence. “Denialists” in that
sense are their customers. You will not nd the climate scientists most
beloved by the Republicans in congress taking strong political
positions, though their actions are invaluable to those that do.

You nd them, instead, asserting that “science does not know”, that
many things are “unclear”, that there is great “uncertainty” (a word
whose technical and nontechnical meanings they happily con ate).

I call this approach to science “agnotropism” (following Oresekes’

de nition of the study of cultivated ignorance “agnotology”, the study
of confusion). It is adaptive for people with more credentials than
talent to take positions that science “does not know” this, that or the
other. Essentially their product is confusion. They nd assertions of
confusion and inconclusiveness attractive. It gives them a willing and
enthusiastic audience, and a global platform, even though what they
are o ering is really the opposite of science.

It’s really not that hard to construct a null result if you set your mind to
it. If all else fails, you can always reduce the size of your dataset!

It’s woefully outside the norms of science to say something like this,
and it’s woefully ad hominem, but in essence the central fact of the
matter is that they are not very good.

They are not very good. They don’t share in the consensus because they
don’t participate in the consensus process. They aren’t part of the
consensus process because their contributions are internally incoherent
as well as at odds with the extant consensus.

The traditions of science are clear. One feels sorry for their students
and postdocs. One silently turns away. One is scrupulously polite at
receptions and meetings but has lunch with someone else.

Science’s Habit of Polite Indi erence is Failing Society

https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd 5/9
16/01/2019 Who Decides What Is True? – Medium

Agnotropism rewards production of papers and positions that are,

really, the opposite of science. They celebrate null results, and happily
confuse lack of a proved connection with proof of non-connection.
They do this in a way that is logically vapid but rhetorically compelling.
Loose journal standards let this through.

The few people producing this nonsense are celebrated. The thousands
participating in a vigorous and sound scienti c process generally, with
a few exceptions, attain to far less attention from the public and the
policy sector.

If you were to poll the public looking for someone who could name a
climate scientist, the names of the dozen chief purveyors of their own
honest ba ement would be at least as likely to come up as the names of
any of the most brilliant contributors to the science.

Dozens of half-baked arguments over the years are enough to sink a

scienti c reputation within science, but can even serve to promote it
with the public.

We have to go outside our deeply bred politeness and forgiveness and

avoidance of the ad hominem. Some people are just not worth paying
attention to. Science knows this, but is too polite and circumspect to say
it.

Consensus Studies Confuse the Issue

When you are a legitimate participant in a vibrant science, you know
what the science says. The idea of polling the scientists or of counting
publications, perhaps politically useful in counteracting the science-of-
ba ement strategy, implicitly leads to a perception that consensus is a
rare phenomenon in science.

In fact, it isn’t, because the consensus process isn’t just about certainty.

There is an ongoing consensus about what is certain, what is likely,

what is possible, what is “maybe close to the truth” or “maybe part of
the story”. There is rarely much disagreement on the big picture that
divides a mature science.

Peer review isn’t just about publications. People who respect facts want
to earn the respect of other people who respect facts. It’s intensely
social. Consensus is the zeitgeist that emerges within speci c scienti c
communities. We don’t spend our days thinking about this consensus,

https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd 6/9
16/01/2019 Who Decides What Is True? – Medium

any more than a sh spends its time thinking about water. Consensus is
the water in which we swim.

Consensus Isn’t Enough

The press, the public, and the policy sector have to make decisions
based on real evidence. Yet we live in a world where the technologies of
fake evidence are well developed. How can we collectively develop
antibodies to bogus arguments?

I really don’t know. I would like to point out, though, that an excessive
dependence on the consensus process is as dangerous as ignoring
consensus altogether. I don’t care what the consensus among
homeopaths is.

More crucially, I don’t care what the economic consensus is among

people who believe not only that growth is inde nitely sustainable but
that such growth is inevitable. (Much of the economic analysis of
climate change is based on exactly this assumption, even though that is
the key question at issue!)

We need ways to establish the credibility of a eld and the credibility of

its critics. I’m not sure I have any proposals.

But just as the emergence of consensus within science is a combination

of the social and the logical, I think the same must be true of some
future democratic world that takes better decisions than our own.

Those whose focus is on “cultural cognition”, who basically advocate

the reduction of science to politics, and those whose focus is on logical
argument who basically advocate the reduction of politics to science,
each tell only a small fraction of the story. If there’s an answer, it’s far
more complex than either of those.

==

June 12: Some edits for clarity, and a few added paragraphs for cohesion.

Originally published version here

Likes and shares appreciated.

https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd 7/9
16/01/2019 Who Decides What Is True? – Medium

https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd 8/9
16/01/2019 Who Decides What Is True? – Medium

https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd 9/9