Sometimes training can become a way of life. When I was a graduate student in Seattle, I once left a nightclub at two in the morning to grab a burger at a nearby fast-food establishment. With hindsight, walking through the Denny Regrade area alone at two in the morning in a very short skirt was a pretty stupid thing to do, but when the man came after me, my body responded before I even had time to think: I blocked his outstretched right arm by swiping it with a left-armed parry and punched him in the gut with my right. Not a wussy girl punch, but a proper one: starting from the resting position with fist facing palm upwards and elbow crooked at my waist, then corkscrewing anti-clockwise so that the punch would concentrate the force precisely on impact. Needless to say it was the last thing he’d expected and when he doubled over in pain, I was able to run away.
The incredible thing about this incident was that I was only a white belt in karate. I had been training in my local dojo for just six months, but somehow, all of the endless kata and sparring exercises had made something foreign become instinctive. When the call came to act, my muscles no longer needed to consult the boss.
I feel this way about scientific thinking: it’s instinctive too, and hits me even when encountering scenarios that have nothing to do with the lab. I thought about this yesterday as I stood in a crowded Jubilee Line carriage on my way home from work. In one of the free papers, the headline Ban ‘works’ caught my eye:
The British Transport Police today revealed how many passengers have been thrown off the Tube for breaking Boris Johnson’s booze ban – a grand total of zero.
After a brief explanation of the law in question, the rest of the piece set off all of my scientific alarms:
But since the ban’s introduction, not a single drinker has been forced off a train. A spokesman for Transport for London said: “This shows that the alcohol ban is self-imposing and working.”
It does no such thing! The logic here is, of course, fatally flawed. Yes, that is one hypothesis, but there is another one: namely that the law is not being enforced. Indeed, anyone who has been on the London Underground around pub closing time or before and after major football matches will know that many people are still drinking. Either they are hiding the containers from view when they negotiate the barriers, or no TFL staff can be bothered (or dares) to stop them. Once inside the carriages, there are no conductors to tell them to stop, so the merriment continues unabated. Of course, I am open to the possibility that the hypothesis mooted by TFL is the right one, but I’d need to see enough evidence to counter that which I’ve harvested with my own eyes.
As a scientist, I process my entire world through an open mind filtered with a screen of severe skepticism. There are, of course, other professions that teach critical thinking: I reckon lawyers, for example, would have spotted the article’s logical weakness immediately. But what about everyone else? For me, this ability to see and analyze is probably the best legacy of a sound scientific education, even if the students go on to do something else. Otherwise we are at the mercy of the media and spokespeople who trust that we will believe everything we read without question.
Your comment about transport staff reminds me forcefully of my daily commute hell – one aspect of which is that the guard on the train is obviously under similar orders to the “alchohol ban mentality” to say that he/she is located in car “x” if anyone has a problem, and that he/she will be walking down the train on the journey to ensure all are OK. Of course, one never sees this guard – for one reason it would be impossible for anyone to walk anywhere on the train as they are crammed with long-suffering, standing passengers. But no doubt, some bean-counter is gaily adding up “no incident” reports…..
I’ve been on overground trains recently that were so crowded that I couldn’t get to my reserved seat — even the ticket collector couldn’t get through.
‘No incident’ reports must happen quite frequently in many other walks of life, when you start thinking about it. How many people are lulled into a false sense of complacency by them? And then I wonder if that isn’t for the best — is ignorance actually bliss when things don’t truly matter?
Jenny, I will never again call your grammar into question. Ian will have to fight his own battles from now on 😉
I know what you mean though – I instinctively switch to “sceptical scientist” mode too.
Does anyone else find that this stance is a bit unpopular in social settings?
Yup!
That’s interesting, Cath — missed it the first time around. You remind me of the slippery thing about the scientific open mind: there is clearly a line beyond which the plausible becomes improbable, and non-scientists are keen to push that boundary. It’s very difficult to navigate those grey areas.
Good numbers = Good policy!
&
More Funding = Better Science!
For god’s sake. I can’t remember how to moderate. (Unless I’m missing something?)
bq. Does anyone else find that this stance is a bit unpopular in social settings?
Heck yeah. I run into all the time. I find it also leads to me taking up unpopular stances at home and elsewhere because I start looking at all the possible angles.
I forgot (in my rush to think scientifically and sarcastically) to say – good job on getting away! A little self-defense can go a long way.
Thanks Craig, although I still have no idea what your first comment referred to.
Richard, do you mean you take stances you don’t actually advocate?
Yes, I do. I enjoy intellectual & philosophical discussion and will take up, sometimes, a contrary position to what I believe. Especially if I think proponents of that position are being misunderstood or unfairly ragged upon.
Could be a dangerous strategy. Do you come clean in the end?
I find myself doing the same thing occasionally. It does confuse people!
Ian will have to fight his own battles from now on 😉
My scientific Muay Thai vs. Jenny’s scientific Karate… Will SciBlog 09 have boxing ring? >:)
Does anyone else find they have to make an effort not to think, or at least to respond, in this way?
I can see from Cath’s experience that politesse can oblige one to adopt a non-committal stance but in everyday conversation it is possible to unintentionally irritate others because I automatically
Two passengers were sitting opposite each other on a train. One was systematically tearing pages out of a newspaper, balling them up, and throwing them out of the window.
“Why are you doing that?” the other passenger asks.
“To keep the unicycling girrafes away,” replies the first, the man with the newspaper.
The second passenger gets up and peers out of the window. “I can’t see any unicycling girrafes,” he says.
“That only goes to show how effective this is,” replies the first passenger.
To whit my first comment…It is obvious that the ban policy is “working” because lack of any real enforcement leads to the perception that there are no incidences to report – since no one is caught. Therefore, the policy is good/working so the low numbers = good policy. This circular reasoning is used by many, even in the sciences. Just look at the efforts to increase research funding. The idea is that more money will lead to “break-throughs and advancements” however, there is little proof that the increases did that. In fact it may be that increases in funding just led to more science (good and bad). Sorry for the long explanation (that may not be that clear – I blame the Halloween candy). No more post-trick-or-treating posting for me.
bq. Do you come clean in the end?
Only if it suits my nefarious porpoises.
Jenny, I was strongly surprised when I heard that science is about skepticism for the first time. Now I am habituated to this argument (I think political one), however if there is, at all, a reason to not be a skeptic, the science is. We can do – due to our knowledge – many (still unbelievable) things which were invented by visionarists. Skepticism itself is not able to invent anything (only destroy… cf. Koch´s story) :-).
Craig, thanks for the explanation – you’d delivered only two lines in a ten-line proof, earlier. All clear now!
Boris, skepticism is not about discounting unbelievable things out of hand. It is about allowing the possibility that they are right or wrong, and going about testing the hypotheses. Many scientists have to posit incredible hypotheses to progress, but if at the same time they don’t consider the formal possibility that their favored hypotheses is wrong, all is lost.
Does anyone else find they have to make an effort not to think, or at least to respond, in this way?
I don’t bother, any more. If people can’t handle my stance, they don’t have to listen to me. I am always polite, but I’m not going to suspend my skepticism in the name of etiquette.
Jenny> I think there are the same “stop, wait and think” in staticians for example (my pet peeve “it’s significantly different”).
The example of the bad in London seems a lot like “we have no problems” since noone is looking for them… but I guess the null hypothesis can be solved, although wrongly, like that?!
Great that the muscle memory worked that fast! I’ve been surprised (and a little scared) sometimes when my body has responded faster than my brain… especially when it has been someone “who wanted to joke”. Well, if you need a ref in the fight/showing with Dr Brooks I can volonteer – as a former Judo/Jujitsu present kickboxing person 😉
Forgive me for being a little unfashionable, but I can not stand by and watch this. Men are designed to protect women, not fight them.
Dr Rohn, if you’d like to nominate a champion then I am at your service. If you’re rather defend your own honor against that Brooks character, I will respect that decision, too. But the offer stands.
Jenny: Boris, skepticism is not about discounting unbelievable things out of hand. It is about allowing the possibility that they are right or wrong, and going about testing the hypotheses. Many scientists have to posit incredible hypotheses to progress, but if at the same time they don’t consider the formal possibility that their favored hypotheses is wrong, all is lost.
Boris: Of course, you are right… I would rather call your stance “common sense” than skepticism, but mere words are not so important.
Jenny: I am always polite, but I’m not going to suspend my skepticism in the name of etiquette.
Boris: In my view, skepticism is much better than etiquette (already Pyrrho knew it 😉
Ha ha – good point, Boris.
Asa, the man who attacked me in Seattle was clearly not joking; I usually give people the benefit of the doubt but this particular individual’s intentions were made entirely clear. I don’t think I would have made the first strike if he’d had a weapon, though; I think I would have given in to my fate. Karate doesn’t deal with weaponry, at least not the branch that I was attending.
I am quite sure that Brooks could beat me in a fair fight — he’s got the height advantage. And I’d probably just start giggling.
Jenny: I am quite sure that Brooks could beat me in a fair fight — he’s got the height advantage. And I’d probably just start giggling.
Boris: Human force is not about muscles or height etc., but about something exlusively human what animals cannot do… actually, are animals able to giggle? 😉
My cat definitely sniggers. Does that count?
Actually Boris, it’s funny you should mention that. The night I got attacked, my friend was on the door of the nightclub as a bouncer. 5’6″, very slight, and he could make the biggest bully back down with just a look and a particularly choice selection of words. It was really amazing. To this day I don’t know how he did it.
Jenny: My cat definitely sniggers. Does that count?
Boris: Definitely, you are a poet… even grass, trees, stars, and water talk. I hear it everyday :-). It is exclusively human
Jenny: Actually Boris, it’s funny you should mention that. The night I got attacked, my friend was on the door of the nightclub as a bouncer. 5’6″, very slight, and he could make the biggest bully back down with just a look and a particularly choice selection of words. It was really amazing. To this day I don’t know how he did it.
Boris: There many mysteries of all human being :-).
bq. just a look and a particularly choice selection of words.
I pulled that off a couple of weeks ago. Was at an adventure park, and some dozy dingbat (can I say ‘dingbat’?) slammed into the back of Rachel on the bobsleigh run. After I made sure Rachel was OK I turned round to this guy (slightly shorter than me but stockier), poked him in the chest and told him to watch what he’s fucking doing, all right?
His mate (who was definitely bigger than me) look panicked, and he nearly burst into tears. I almost felt sorry for him.
Almost.
Actually, I would like to be fair to animals… Humans were said to be (in fact) animals (vulgar darwinism). I think the opposite could be more right: Animals are rather humans than cartesian animals (=machines)…
Richard, psychology is surely powerful weapon :-).
Jenny> I did understand he didn’t joke with you. I’m just always surprised the few times that someone has tried to jokingly approach and scare me and I do something [violently] as a reflex… I’ve cut back on the violence but the arm still flexes…
Richard> Well, I could always offer to be Brooks’ stand-in as a female, as you did with male offer for Ms Rohn. Although I am quite sure that Dr Rohn and I are not in the same weight class…. so the main problem still stands, it’s either tall and better reach or similar height but more mass 😉
But more importantly- going back to the original post – how do you deal with people “telling you what is right and not” even if you clearly know what you are talking aobut [your science area] when they are referring to “everyone knows” and “I don’t think so”. I’ve encountered it the last couple of weeks in increasingly “you’re wrong” and I wonder if that is a common thing for you too?
I think I tend to piss people off in that case, Åsa.
Asa, I have encountered these sorts of people and I don’t think it is possible to force them to believe that your 15 years of scientific research and command of all the peer-reviewed literature can trump a high-profile lie on the internet or the word of a telegenic charlatan. It all comes down to science education again: if they don’t know about the scientific method or about the rigorous controls imposed by scientific journals, than how are they to understand that things printed there are more reliable than things printed elsewhere? How are they to know that you aren’t just another charismatic person giving them an alternative viewpoint?
Jenny, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding science education and learning reasonable skepticism. Here in the US there’s a very strong cultural component against “book lernin'” as well as many advocating it.
But then even those fortunate enough to be educated tend to split into the humanities and science factions rather than embracing both. One result has been that TV/radio/print leans away from science and its methodology whenever possible (except for the pocket represented by the few surviving science and SF mags, some shows on public radio and TV, and a cable TV network here and there). Another outgrowth of this split is that our science and technical people tend to be very poor communicators outside their own fields.
This is where your Lab Lit work comes in – trying to bridge that gap. Not trying is certainly more comfortable at the moment, but in a democracy that approach can lead to real problems depending on who decides to vote and why.
So I guess I’m suggesting to any NN readers that have a few million in disposable income (or own a TV network or publishing house) that promoting Lab Lit would be a good thing. Get a loveable celebrity as a spokesperson. That seems to work best.
The US’s anti-intellectual bias isn’t anything new though, is it? I am wondering if this isn’t actually the norm throughout history Nobody likes know-it-alls — look what happened to Socrates.
I’m sure there’s always an undercurrent in the US, but from what I can tell reading the history books, the strength of the anti-intellectural idea tends to go in phases. In the US, it seems in the 50’s, 60’s and well into the 70’s, science training was socially looked upon rather favorably, even in some parts of the counter-culture movement. At some point (mid-70’s?) science swapped over into something very un-cool. (Possible exception – environmental stuff.) Some of that was driven by the rise of the conservative religious movement in politics, and I think also it was heavily influenced by an increasingly superficial 15 minute celebrity culture.
Things may be starting to swing back the other way now – but today’s adults (including teachers and parents) grew up in a science-negative environment.
Incidentally, I’ve noted with some fascination how critical (scientific) thinking habits can easy be boxed in by other values. I work with a number of folks who are very smart, technically saavy, and use critical thinking in their own area of expertise. However, when they venture into other lines of science and then on into politics, they become absolutely fixed in place by their chosen religious/social dogma. Critical thinking and real world problem-solving then isn’t much of a factor. (I’m sure we all do that to some extent, of course. Except me.) Its an interesting phenomena to observe – but don’t get in an argument with someone operating on that basis. The question is how to overcome such attitudes over the long-term without substituting a new kind of fixed dogma.
One of our comedy shows here did a bio-pic piece called “Nostradomous – Mr. Know It All”, that follows your Socrates example. It seems good communication skills and a sensitivity for others needs to go along with abstract brain power.
A lot of scientists are actually quite rigid about certain things – they have their pet biases. I suppose this is human nature.
Pet hypotheses, too.
Which is why it hurts when you have to put them down.
The hypotheses, I hope, not the scientists!
Well, I’m making a little list…
I suppose Lab Lit fiction in which the scientists followed the scientific method in all aspects of their lives, private as well as public, would make for a smashingly bad read, after all…..
Oh I don’t know, James. Sounds like a fascinating experiment—or maybe it’s already been done.
“fiction in which the scientists followed the scientific method in all aspects of their lives, private as well as public” would definitely be science fiction! But it might be a good comedy piece. I like it.
There was a funny on a website somewhere… (can’t remember where) where this chap decided to test all the sayings about love, such as ‘love means never having to say you’re sorry’.
It was brilliant.
Found it!
This is great!
RESULTS: Test 1 — While engaged in dishwashing activities with the test subject, the investigator deliberately dropped a drinking glass on the floor, shattering it. The investigator was careful to avoid any interchange that could be construed as an apology, limiting himself to ‘Oops!’ and ‘I wonder how that happened?’ When the subject was asked, later that evening, ‘Do you still love me?’, she answered in the affirmative.
Thank you for that link, Richard – it was delightful.
Marriage, on the other hand, requires apology, punctuality, sobriety, fidelity, fiscal responsibility, and possibly additional, as yet unidentified, qualities.
Yep.
Do I detect a note of cynicism in my breezy, idealistic salon?
Thanks for the Monday morning laugh – good stuff!
Now, to work…
Not at all Jenny, just scientists laughing at themselves.
Forgive me for being a little unfashionable, but I can not stand by and watch this. Men are designed to protect women, not fight them.
Don’t be ridiculous! How sexist! I do my best to punch as many women in the face as men in any given day. I’ll not be told I’m some old fashioned heathen!!
make the biggest bully back down with just a look and a particularly choice selection of words
I love that talent and I wish I had it. I do often get mistaken for bouncer/doorman if I happen to loiter near the door of a bar though. Happens all the time. I wonder if there’s something to it…Other than being 6’3″ and looking pissed off most of the time. It is fun to ID people for no reason though, anyway.
As to the main topic, I agree with Jenny & Boris (et al.), that I don’t turn my inner skeptic off anymore. If you say something dumb, I’ll likely call you out on it. I’m bored of biting my tongue to avoid causing offence when I have to sit there taking offence!!
make the biggest bully back down with just a look and a particularly choice selection of words
Tomorrow night I will be going to a hockey game with my husband and his 6 foot 9, 350 pound friend. Who has years of bouncer experience and training. And who doesn’t even need to give anyone any looks or words.
We are not anticipating any trouble from opposing fans.
Aw, blokes like that are sweet. They just want cuddles. Like big dogs.
And
TiddIan only fights women because he couldn’t take a real man.his 6 foot 9, 350 pound friend
an ex of mine knew a bloke like that when we were in Uni. Big Icelandic dude. Hanging out with him was awesome cos there was never any trouble!
…and Grant..I’ll have you old son…
This guy does security work for the City in Vancouver’s North Shore Mountains. A while ago he came very suddenly face to face with a bear… and the bear scarpered. Very sensible.
Promises, promises, Brooks.
The Ian “Tiddles” Brooks v’s Richard “ZZ Lab Rat” Grant battle commences.
Gentlemen, I expect a clean fight.
Proceed:-
bq. Gentlemen, I expect a clean fight.
You’re watching the wrong channel then, mate.
(Where do you find this stuff, Steel?)
(Where do you find this stuff, Steel?)
Namely from my blog-roll.
That one came from here
Personally I’d rather see Brooks and Grant mud-wrestle.
How exciting … do they require a referee on the mud?
haha, and here I thought of saying “thanks for the comments on how to deal and not deal with obtuse people” 😉
[i’m staying out of the mud wrestling discussion… very far… ^^ ]
You volunteering, Ralph?
I doubt there were any major incidents that were a direct result of people drinking on the tube, but congratulations to Boris for finding an easy way to claim credit. In his re-election campaign expect him to claim ‘I solved London’s drinking problem’.