Politics and the Environment:
How Much Will Miami Students Buy
Into Bogus Science?
I. Abstract
This project set out to find if there was a relative connection between political affiliation, environmental attitudes, and critical thinking. We wanted to see how critically people would evaluate information they are presented with, even if they have never heard of the problem, and even if the supposed ñproblemî is fictitious.
Our test involved a simple two page survey. On the first page were two questions accompanying the following statement: "Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless, tasteless and odorless chemical used in a wide range of industrial activities. DHMO is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people each year .... A ban of DHMO would be effective, but could have severe economic implications." There was then a question asking whether they would support a ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide, which is water. We felt that anyone who examined the question thoroughly would "get it" and thus not support the ban.
This wasn't just a joke we got to play on the students of Miami. The survey provided interesting data about the political affiliation, environmental beliefs, and general motivation of the students of Miami towards environmental causes. Our hypothesis was that those who are more conservative, who strongly identify themselves with the right wing of the political spectrum, would be more likely to intensely review the information presented before them before they made a conclusion.
II. Introduction and Context
We began this project trying to investigate how bias influences science. We were quite amazed at the lengthy history and numerous examples of how the dominant political and religious ideas of different time periods have prevented scientific fact from being widely accepted. Moreover, we were also surprised to find how even today, people buy into false science for numerous reasons.
Historically, the Christian Church has played a large role in the suppression of scientific knowledge. Because science often conflicts with the teachings of the Bible, the Church resorted to censorship, exile, torture, and even execution to prevent scientists from publishing their work. Both Copernicus and Galileo both kept their theories of astronomy secret for many years, fearing persecution by the church. The church considered lightning was also considered a punishment of sinners by God; when Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, Christians everywhere bitterly assailed him for robbing God of his judgment.
And certainly Charles Darwin knew that his revolutionary theories on natural selection would invite the full fury of the Christian world. He therefore delayed publishing his theory for over 20 years, agonizing over the decision of whether or not to publish. He was finally forced to publish in 1858, when he learned that the naturalist Alfred Wallace was about to publish the same theory. Darwin of course lived in a different time than Copernicus, Galeleo, Decartes, and many other pioneering scientists, and was able to escape extreme persecution.
These are examples of external source exerting pressure on the scientist. We were more interested in finding examples of internal bias. Craniology, a false science that attempted to reinforce a racially defined hierarchy through series of scientific experiments is a classic example of bias affecting science. These experiments ñprovedî the superiority of the dominant class, in this case, aristocratic white European males. Produced following the publication of DarwinÍs Origins of a Species, which describes in detail the theory of evolution, these studies attempted to further DarwinÍs conclusion that mankind evolved from primates. They attempted to prove that ñlowerî classes, dictated by race, gender, or social status, were not as fully evolved as members of the dominant class. Sometimes the numbers produced by the experiments were sound, but too often the conclusions were assumed before any measurements were taken.
Although there have been numerous examples of science "gone bad," it would be a wrong to assume that this is the norm and not the exception. When science works the way it's supposed to, other scientists and researchers are given the reasoning, access to the results, and enough information so that they can repeat the experiments and research. This scrutiny by other scientists either verifies or casts doubt on the claims made by the original researchers.
Most flaws in science result primarily from oversight and misinterpretation of results rather than incorrect data from experiments. Incomplete data and hidden variables often are the result of a researcher will overlook or fail to account for factors that may influence his or her conclusions. Unreliable data too should make one view conclusions based on an informal study or on anecdotal information with a great deal of skepticism. Finally, what we were interested in examining was researcher bias. Study results can be influenced by a researcher who believes the results will turn out in a particular way.
But these errors can often be avoided in the laboratory by strict adherence to the scientific method. Bias and lack of critical analysis exist throughout society. Robert Park, a physics professor at the University of Maryland, researches what he labels "Voodoo Science," particularly homespun remedies and medical treatments. "We tend to get over whatever it is that afflicts us," Park states. "If we happen to be taking prune juice when we get better, some of us will believe that it was because of the prune juice. Presto, the Prune Juice Therapy." (Comarow)
What distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is that a "scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would logically prove the theory wrong." (Strobel)
When asked whether voodoo science is a threat, Park stated that "it's not much of a threat to science. But to the people in the Heaven's Gate cult, who died thinking they would be taken away by aliens traveling in a comet's wake, it was a serious threat. To people who rely on useless cures, it's a threat. To mothers who suffer terrible anxiety over supposed dangers to their children from electric power lines, it's a threat. It's the public that pays a price for this." (Comarow)
As for a solution to the problems of alleviating "Voodoo Science?" Park says that "Common sense can help, but people don't have enough confidence in their common sense. Take homeopathy. If there's no medicine in a medicine, most people would believe taking it is not going to be effective, and that's the case with homeopathic remedies. Most of them have no detectable level of any active substance, and instead its practitioners have concocted this remarkable argument that water "remembers" what was in it." (Comarow)
This project also highlighted the importance of language in dealing with science.
States A.J. Marr on the importance of language and descriptions in describing scientific processes: ñNowadays, man has access to a wealth of metaphors from modern science. Cancers, black holes, laser beams, and computer viruses have replaced the vitalistic metaphors that assigned causes to ethereal spirits, evil demons, or invisible ethers. Of course, the incorporation of the metaphors of the biological and physical sciences into common language does not entail the ability to map actual processes, but only suggest those processes. The metaphorical description of a cold and its viral causes does not equate with a biochemical or biological description that requires a strict syntax and data language all its own. Thus when we mix our metaphors by talking about rampaging viruses spreading like wildfire from person to person, we know that our description only suggests what viruses are doing in the large, not the actual processes that cause them to propagate and harm." (Marr) Language shapes our understanding of reality. By calling water DHMO, we altered how people were to perceive it.
III. Methods
Our project consisted of a two page survey that we handed out to random students throughout the Miami campus. Most of our surveys were filled out either before or after class, both on Western and on ñmain campus,î or at the Shriver center food court. We approached both individuals and groups, and asked them if they would care to take a survey.
The survey was as follows:
BEGINING OF SURVEY
The following is a survey being conducted by students of WCP 222.
PART I: Please read the following statement:
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless, tasteless and odorless chemical used in a wide range of industrial activities. DHMO is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people each year. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Highly addictive, for those who have become dependent on DHMO, withdrawal means certain death. Quantities of DHMO have been found in nearly every reservoir, lake and steam in the United States. DHMO can cause severe environmental damage when released in large quantities or over an extended period of time. A ban of DHMO would be effective, but could have severe economic implications.
Based on the previous statement, which is factually true, would you support a ban on DHMO? (pick one)
Yes No
If yes, why? (pick your chief reason)
_____ Safety and health reasons
_____ Humans have a responsibility towards the environment and future generations
_____ Other (please specify:) ________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
If no, why? (pick your chief reason)
_____ Economic costs
_____ The government shouldnÍt interfere in business and personal affairs
_____ Other (please specify:) ________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
PART II: Please answer the following questions:
How much do you support environmental legislation? (1 = completely opposed, 10 = completely supportive)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How much do you support environmental legislation involving significant economic costs? (1 = completely opposed, 10 = completely supportive)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
If you voted in the previous election, who did you vote for?
_____ George W. Bush
_____ Al Gore
_____ Ralph Nader
_____ Pat Buchanan
_____ Other (specify): ____________________________
_____ I did not vote
How significant was the environmental policies of the each candidate in your decision for whom to vote? (1 = no significance, 10 = extremely significant)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
If a Miami student, what college or school are you currently enrolled in?
_____ The College of Arts and Science
_____ The Richard T. Farmer School of Business Administration
_____ The School of Engineering and Applied Science
_____ School of Interdisciplinary Studies (Western College Program)
_____ The School of Fine Arts
_____ Graduate School
_____ Undecided
_____ Not a Miami Student
END OF SURVEY
We then analyzed the results, as broken down into three categories: those who supported a ban, those who did not support a ban, and those who knew DHMO was water, and thus did not support a ban. We tried to find specifically if there was a correlation between the environmental attitudes and which of those three categories people fell into.
IV. Results
Our results turned out to be inconclusive. We performed a chi squared test to determine whether or not it could be concluded that the differences among the three groups, those who did not support a ban, those who did support a ban, and those who determined that dihydrogen monoxide is water. (Though this third group is also included among the first group.) The result of our test was that there was not enough to conclusively say that there is a difference between the group that determined that dihydrogen monoxide is water and the other two.
However, we also took the average responses to the questions regarding their support of environmental legislation, their support of environmental legislation despite significant economic costs, and their view of the importance of environmental issues in the previous election. We found that while the two groups that did not figure out that DHMO is water were not significantly different in any way, the group of people who did figure it out were different. While each individual question failed to show a significant enough difference, we noticed a trend when all three are looked at together.
In each of these graphs, the first column is those who would not support a ban, the second, those who would support a ban, and the third those who noticed that DHMO is water. As you can see, though the differences are not significant enough to stand on their own, in each of the three, those who realized that DHMO is water had more favorable attitudes towards environmental legislation. The presidential choices of the three groups is also interesting.
In this graph, the first column in each grouping is those who did not support a ban, the middle, those who did support a ban, and lastly those who noticed that DHMO is water. As you can see a greater percentage of the third group voted for Al Gore and Ralph Nader, while a significantly smaller portion of the third group voted for George W. Bush. This can be seen more easily when the graph is broken down into three pie charts.
While the first two charts look very similar, there is a clear difference in the third from the first two. The shares of the votes received by Gore and Nader significantly increase, as does the percentage which did not vote or voted by other. Bush's share of the votes is significantly smaller in this category than in either of the first two.
Just to ensure that the difference was not completely consistent of the educational aims of the individual, ie that science majors would be the only ones to realize DHMO is water because of their background in chemistry, we also asked each survey participant for the school which they have chosen for their education here at Miami.
A further look at the way that each group breaks down is also helpful. We broke down the percentages of each group for those who did not support a ban, those who did support a ban, and those who noticed that DHMO is water. These are reflected in the three columns under each heading in following graph.
V. Conclusions
The results of our survey and statistical analysis are mixed. First and foremost, our original hypothesis was proven incorrect. Not only were the people who figured out that DHMO is water not typically conservative, they were in fact more liberal on average. The people who we thought were most likely to glance over our survey and support a ban without questioning it too much were in fact the least likely to do so.
However, though the differences were not enough for a chi squared test to show a significant difference on any individual questions, there is a pattern which could be confirmed with further study. It is our guess that the reason those who answered no to a ban on water had stronger support of environmental legislation is because of their familiarity with the subject. This familiarity demands that the participant question the things that they read, and that they have already developed a healthy skepticism for the problems they face and t the solutions which are often proposed.
It is also very interesting that the political choices made by those who figured out that DHMO is water are significantly different from the average of the survey takers. Here, even more than their own descriptions of their support for environmental legislation, we can see that there is a significant liberal trend. The candidates who received the most votes from this third group were Gore and Nader, followed by those who didnÍt vote and finally by Bush and other. The political decisions that were made by those in the third group clearly favor those candidates who placed environmental legislation at the heart of their campaign efforts.
The results seem to indicate that those who are more liberal towards environmental policies tend to examine more critically the data they are presented with. This goes against our original conclusion that they would be more biased. Given the long history of personal and political bias in influencing science, this is perhaps an indication of hope, that the scientific process, in an open and free society, where information is freely distributed among a network of scientists, that can scrutinize and examine the research of other scientists, that data that is flawed will be caught and corrected.
VI. References
Bates, Elizabeth and Dick, Frederic. Beyond Phrenology: Brain and Language in the Next Millennium. San Diego. University of California Press. 1999.
Comarow, Avery. ñHow bad science can be hazardous to your health.î U.S. News and World Reports. May 8, 2000. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000508/nycu/
park.htm
Groleau, Rick. ñExposing Flawed Science.î http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/ pseudoscience.html. 2000.
Kaufman, M. H. and N. Basden. Items Relating to Dr. Johann Gaspar Spurzheim (1776- 1832) In the Henderson Trust Collection, Formerly the Museum Collection of the Phrenological Society of Edinburgh: With an Abbreviated Iconography. London. Elsavior Science Ltd. 1996
Marr, A.J. ñDawkinÍs Bad Idea: Memes, Genes, and the Metaphors of Psychology.î
http://www.homestead.com/flowstate/files/zdawkinsgood.htm. 2000.
Rice, N.L. Phrenology Examined, and Shown to be Inconsistent with the Principles of Phisiology, Mental and Moral Science, and the Doctrines of Christianity. Also An Examination of the Claims of Mesmerism. New York, R. Carter & Brothers; Cincinnati, J. D. Thorpe, 1849
Schiller, Francis. Paul Broca, Founder of French Anthropology, Explorer of the Brain. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Sizer, Nelson. Heads and Faces and How to Study Them; A Manual of Phrenolgy and Physiognomy For the People. New York, Fowler and Wells Co., 1885.
Strobel, Nick. ñMethod for Finding Scientific Truth.î September 12, 2000. http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/scimethd.htm
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu
IMPORTANT: For each Response, make sure the title of the response is different than previous titles shown above!
WEATHER & EARTH SCIENCE RESOURCES |
|
OTHER ACADEMIC COURSES, STUDENT RESEARCH, OTHER STUFF
|
|
TEACHING TOOLS & OTHER STUFF
 |
Listen to a "Voice Navigation" Intro!
(Quicktime or