No Evidence Could Ever Exist That Would Change My Mind

Sheila Kennedy and EMPAC have both written posts about an exchange Rep. Rokita had with a constituent on the subject of climate change that underscores why yesterday’s march in support of science is necessary. As Sheila quotes the constituent:

My question was “What evidence do you require in order to revise your opinion on climate change?”

His response was “No evidence could ever exist that would change my mind. It’s all Liberal science.”

Rokita’s response is the equivalent of a kid sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling, “LALALALA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!”

I’m not going to naively tell you that science is purely objective and tell you it can’t be liberal or conservative. In a strict sense, that’s true. The scientific method is one where you create hypothesis that is testable and falsifiable with results that are observable and repeatable. In that sense, science is not liberal or conservative. However, scientific results can be complicated and nuanced, and people can absolutely cherry pick results or interpret them with motivated reasoning.

But to say that all climate change science is liberal science or to flatly say that there is no evidence that could change his mind amounts to zealotry. I’ve come across this sort of reaction before — not with respect to science, but just with respect to having a discussion or argument generally. A person feels something is true, they don’t trust my arguments, but they can’t articulate a reason why my reasoning is flawed. So, they say — in effect — “I don’t care what you say, I believe what I believe.” They don’t trust themselves to distinguish good reasoning from flawed reasoning and don’t want to be lead astray from what they feel to be the “truth” by a bunch of fancy lawyer talk. So you get that sort of refusal to articulate a set of standards that would change his mind.

Seems to me that a population with a healthy grounding in the scientific method and its flaws would be better able to engage with scientific observations without fear that they were getting snookered by half-truths. Science education doesn’t, of course, solve all problems. EMPAC suggests that we might have an Upton Sinclair problem: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” But, perhaps a well-educated populace will recognize a public servant with an Upton Sinclair problem and adjust their vote accordingly.

Sheila’s post concludes:

As Neil DeGrasse Tyson likes to say, science is true whether we believe it or not. What he implies, but doesn’t say, is that rejecting reality is a prescription for disaster–and so is continuing to elect people who find science unacceptably “liberal.”

Or, as someone else succinctly and ominously put it, “Mother Nature bats last.”

<b>Update</b> Dave Bangert, writing for the Lafayette Journal & Courier has more on the exchange between Rep. Rokita and the constituent, Stacy Bogan.  Bangert quotes Bogan as asking, “What threshold of proof do you require in order to listen to scientists worldwide rather than listening to a handful of lawyers who are funded by fossil fuels?” Bangert then quotes Rokita’s response. The source of the quote isn’t clear from the context of Bangert’s column. So, I don’t know off hand if someone had a tape recorder running that was transcribed, Bangert is going from his own notes, or perhaps Rokita provided the information. It differs quite a bit from Sheila Kennedy’s quote of Bogan’s Facebook page recollecting the exchange.

Rokita is quoted as saying that we should rely on scientific methodology so we don’t have to trust the scientists themselves. But, insofar as it is responsive to Bogan’s question, the Rokita quote says:

[T]here’s all kind of questions in regard to the liberal scientists who come up with their research. . . . There is all kinds of discrepancy in the science that you quote. I’m not going to vote for policies that could disrupt our entire economy and do things just because of someone’s liberal hunches.

In response to a follow up question where Marc Hudson alludes to the idea that 99% of climate scientists are opposed to Rokita’s view of the matter and asks whether Rokita thinks that 99% of scientists are liberal, Rep. Rokita responded:

“Ninety-nine percent of the climate scientists haven’t been interviewed. Of the ones that have been polled, they’ve come up with their opinion. …

“I have looked into this issue. I have studied it. I’d be happy to be moved by evidence, but I’m not going to be moved by liberal opinion.”

So, we don’t have any kind of articulation of what sort of evidence Rep. Rokita would need in order to make the judgment that we need to take action to address climate change. We just know that he says he believes that there are “all kind of questions” and “all kinds of discrepancy” in the science done by liberal scientists whose liberal opinions will not move him.