When Do You Stop Believing?
Recently, I have been thinking about the things that give people faith in science. As a mental exercise I have created some scenarios concerning scientific claims that shed light on when I will or will not believe alarming claims by scientists. In each case, if the given scenario represented reality, I am sure that some group of people would believe it was all a conspiracy theory or institutional group think, and ignore the scientists. Likewise, I know that some people would continue to believe with religious like conviction, despite all the contrary indicators.
Personally, I start out as a believer and join the “denier” camp about half way down the list.
So, when do you stop believing?
Scenario 1:
- A. It is claimed that a large asteroids is on a collision course with the earth.
- B. The location of the asteroid is published and astronomers all over the world (professional and amateur) are able to spot it with their telescopes.
- C. Anyone can use well tested mathematical formulas to compute its path and confirm the impending collision. These same formulas have been confirmed by observation to correctly plot the path of other asteroids time and again.
- D. Various studies are published predicting Estimates of the damage that will be done based on land strike and sea strike scenarios. Natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, floods, and drought are considered possible or likely consequences, depending on where the asteroid hits.
- E. There is a movement with a costly plan to build a rocket that might be able to divert the asteroid to prevent the collision.
- F. The call goes out for your money, vote, and/or personal effort to help the cause.
Scenario 2 (as above, but):
- A. It is a cloud of smaller meteors that will cause multiple smaller strikes.
- E. The plan of action is some sort of magnetic space net. It is widely questioned whether it will actually help, or if it is already too late.
Scenario 3 (as above but):
- B. The location of the threat (the raw data) is kept confidential by a small group studying the threat.
- C. They assure us that there will be a collision based on well tested formulas, but we can’t do the calculations ourselves.
Scenario 4 (as above but):
- A. It is a cloud of space dust, rather than an asteroid.
- C. Rather than well tested formulas, brand new, untested, computer models (code not released to the public) are used to predict the development of the threat based on new scientific theory (space dust is attracted by our planets magnetic field or some such). But we are assured that these scientist know what they are talking about, and anyone who doesn’t believe is a “denier”.
- D. The potential damage predicted is not anything as obvious as physical collisions – but instead the effects of the dust on our atmosphere are projected as being harmful in various ways. It is even possible that there will be some positive effects, but these are downplayed.
Scenario 5 (as above but):
- E. Studies suggest that the threat is increased by human action. (The use of electricity is said to be causing our magnetic field to be more attractive to the theoretically harmful space dust that only the trained scientists can see) There is a movement with a costly plan to reduce human industry – replace electricity with older power technology – fund development of theoretical new power technology.
- F. You are asked to accept new central political control over a huge section of human industry/production.
Scenario 6 (as above but):
- A. The threat is not anything extraterrestrial but based on global measurements of with regular natural variance that may be as large as that being pointed to as evidence of a threat.
Scenario 7 (as above but):
- C. A whole decade passes with no increase in the threat.
- E. Believers continue to claim that their is no time to waste and that the “scientific debate is over”.
Scenario 8 (as above but):
- G. Leaked emails, data, and computer code show that the “scientists” who would not share the data or code willingly, appear to have an agenda in promoting the threat and suppressing any scientific study that disputes their alarming claims.