Latest news with #socialscience
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Junk Science Week — Terence Corcoran: When science turns political, trust declines
For many years now, popular trust in science has been in decline. That conclusion may not pass a rigid science review since most of the evidence comes from polling, which — according to Google's AI review — lacks scientific rigidity. When asked whether polling is a science, Google AI responded with what looks like a consensus view: 'It is both a science and an art.' The science involves using 'statistical methods, sampling techniques and social science principles to design and conduct polls that accurately reflect public opinion.' Then comes a big cloud of doubt: 'However, the interpretation and application of polling data, as well as the specific strategies used by pollsters, can involve a degree of artistry and political judgment.' Some say polling is 'more an art than a science.' The following is not intended as a put-down of polling, which has its valid processes and uses. The summary definition of polling, however, does somewhat correspond to FP Comment's standard definition of junk science. Junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted, risk is exaggerated (or underplayed) and 'the science' adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda. That definition encompasses a wide range of activities among scientists, NGOs, politicians, journalists, media outlets, cranks and quacks who manipulate science for political, environmental, economic and social purposes. We can now add Artificial Intelligence to the list. The large proportion of science that flows through to the populations of Canada and all countries can, unfortunately, fall into our definition. The array of ideological forces using science to generate public support for social and political causes — or to defeat the same causes — is sowing increasing confusion and distrust. In recent years, poll after poll after poll has produced evidence that public confidence in science has been declining. Back in 2020, University of Alberta professor Tim Caulfield noted that fomenting distrust 'has become the go-to strategy for selling health products, generating clicks and getting elected.' The doubts grew as the COVID-19 pandemic raged and as Donald Trump and others on both sides of the political fence engaged in pitched battles over vaccines. The pandemic is said to be a major factor behind the decline of trust in science, especially in the United States where vaccine polarization accelerated with Trump's appointment of Robert Kennedy Jr. as America's Secretary of Health, which fuelled more doubt (or so the polls showed), especially on the religious right. Opinions may be shifting, however. Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' report released last month has been roundly trashed across the political spectrum for its lack of science and false scientific statements. The Genetic Literacy Project called the report a 'full-scale assault on science.' In a new paper — The Strange New Politics of Science — two researchers at the American Enterprise Institute argue that while 76 per cent of Americans still trust science, the number is 11 points below pre-pandemic levels. The authors rightly argue that 'the stark polarization of American politics around trust in science not only threatens the legitimacy of particular expert institutions, but also has potentially destabilizing consequences for society as a whole.' A 2024 University of Waterloo survey report, Trust in Canada, suggested Canadians still hold science in high regard. Despite the pandemic episodes, 'scientists (along with doctors and researchers) remain one of the most trusted groups in Canada.' In one pre-pandemic poll, 90 per cent of respondents said they 'trusted' and 'trusted very much' science-related sources. They were followed by science-based personalities (76 per cent), journalists (56 per cent), government (46 per cent), comedians (31 per cent), religious leaders (25 per cent), bloggers and influencers (19 per cent), and celebrities (10 per cent). At least journalists ranked higher than comedians. A 2023 Confidence in Leaders survey from Environics found that even during the pandemic, 75 per cent of surveyed citizens still had 'a lot or some confidence' in science, far behind NGOs (52), journalists (50), business leaders (42) and politicians (33). Such polling results highlight the indisputable fact that trust in science may have weakened to some degree in recent years, but the cause may be more a function of other messengers and institutions rather than scientists. Which takes us to the heart of junk science. The junk is not necessarily in the science, but in the various ideological streams through which the science flows. Make no mistake, scientists can have political and ideological agendas, but in open debate the junk can be filtered out. Through this week's 27th annual Junk Science Week, various science issues are explored, beginning with Peter Shawn Taylor's exploration of the questionable science behind the annual bee apocalypse. While a Google AI search question (Are bee populations declining?) will produce various versions of yes, the actual answer is no. Which is not surprising. A recent headline on a science blog said: 'Flood of 'junk': How AI is changing scientific publishing.' Another claimed that 'AI-fabricated 'junk science' floods Google scholar.' And then there is this story from Nature magazine that merged AI with the artful science of polling: 'Is it OK for AI to write science papers? Nature survey shows researchers are split. The poll of 5,000 researchers finds contrasting views on when it's acceptable to involve AI and what needs to be disclosed.' Terence Corcoran: A 'guide' to the Trump-Canada steel tariff war Terence Corcoran: Trump bites U.S. economy to get at Apple Contrasting views in science! Situation normal. • Email: tcorcoran@
Zawya
03-06-2025
- General
- Zawya
Eritrea: Training on Social Science for Students in the Central Region
The National Union of Eritrean Youth and Students provided training on social science to over 3,836 junior and high school students, including 60% female students. The concluding event of the training was conducted on 32 May at Cinema Roma in Asmara. The training covered topics such as nation and nationalism, youth and national service, the pillars of the National Charter, information technology, the meaning of ideology, political concepts and religious philosophy, and the history of the National Union of Eritrean Youth and Students. Mr. Samson Kifle, head of the Union branch, said that the branch is working in collaboration with partners to enhance youth awareness and strengthen their organizational capacity. Mr. Saleh Ahmedin, Chairman of the Union, urged the trainees to transfer the knowledge they gained to their peers and noted that similar training programs will be organized. At the event, awards were presented to outstanding students and exemplary teachers. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Ministry of Information, Eritrea.
Fast Company
22-05-2025
- General
- Fast Company
Is empathy a core strength? Here's what philosophy says
In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, billionaire and Trump megadonor Elon Musk offered his thoughts about what motivates political progressives to support immigration. In his view, the culprit was empathy, which he called 'the fundamental weakness of Western civilization.' As shocking as Musk's views are, however, they are far from unique. On the one hand, there is the familiar and widespread conservative critique of ' bleeding heart ' liberals as naive or overly emotional. But there is also a broader philosophical critique that raises worries about empathy on quite different and less political grounds, including findings in social science. Empathy can make people weaker – both physically and practically, according to social scientists. Consider the phenomenon known as ' empathy fatigue,' a major source of burnout among counselors, nurses and even neurosurgeons. These professionals devote their lives to helping others, yet the empathy they feel for their clients and patients wears them down, making it harder to do their jobs. As philosophers, we agree that empathy can take a toll on both individuals and society. However, we believe that, at its core, empathy is a form of mental strength that enables us to better understand the impact of our actions on others, and to make informed choices. The philosophical roots of empathy skepticism The term 'empathy' only entered the English language in the 1890s. But the general idea of being moved by others' suffering has been a subject of philosophical attention for millennia, under labels such as 'pity,' 'sympathy' and 'compassion.' One of the earliest warnings about pity in Western philosophy comes from the Greek Stoic philosopher Epictetus. In his ' Discourses,' he offers general advice about how to live a good life, centered on inner tranquility and freedom. When it comes to emotions and feelings, he writes: 'He is free who lives as he wishes to live … And who chooses to live in sorrow, fear, envy, pity, desiring and failing in his desires, attempting to avoid something and falling into it? Not one.' Feeling sorry for another person or feeling pity for them compromises our freedom, in Epictetus's view. Those negative feelings are unpleasant, and nobody would choose them for themselves. Empathy would clearly fall into this same category, keeping us from living the good life. A similar objection emerged much later from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche framed his discussion in terms of 'Mitleid' – a German term that can be translated as either 'pity' or 'compassion.' Like Epictetus, Nietzsche worried that pity or compassion was a burden on the individual, preventing them from living the good life. In his book ' Daybreak,' Nietzsche warns that such feelings could impair the very people who try to help others. Epictetus's and Nietzsche's worries about pity or compassion carry over to empathy. Recall, the phenomenon of empathy fatigue. One psychological explanation for why empathic people experience fatigue and even burnout is that empathy involves a kind of mirroring of other people's mental life, a mirroring that can be physically unpleasant. When someone you love is in pain, you don't just believe that they are in pain; you may feel it as if it is actually happening to you. Results from neuroscience and cognitive psychology research indicate that there are different brain mechanisms involved in merely observing another's pain versus empathizing with it. The latter involves unpleasant sensations of the type we experience when we are in pain. Empathy is thus difficult to bear precisely because being in pain is difficult to bear. And this sharpens the Stoic and Nietzschean worries: Why bother empathizing when it is unpleasant and, perhaps, not even necessary for helping others? From understanding knowledge to appreciating empathy The answer for why one should see empathy as a strength starts with a key insight from 20th century philosophy about the nature of knowledge. That insight is based on a famous thought experiment by the Australian philosopher Frank Jackson. Jackson invites us to imagine a scientist named Mary who has studied colors despite having lived her entire life in a black and white room. She knows all the facts about the spectrum distribution of light sources and vision science. She's read descriptions of the redness of roses and azaleas. But she's never seen color herself. Does Mary know everything about redness? Many epistemologists – people who study the nature of knowledge – argue that she does not. What Mary learns when she sees red for the first time is elusive. If she returns to her black and white room, never to see any colored objects again, her knowledge of the colors will likely diminish over time. To have a full, rich understanding of colors, one needs to experience them. Thoughts like these led the philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell to argue that experience delivers a special kind of knowledge of things that can't be reduced to knowledge of facts. Seeing, hearing, tasting and even feeling delivers what he called ' knowledge by acquaintance.' We have argued in a book and recent articles that Jackson's and Russell's conclusions apply to pain. Consider a variation on Jackson's thought experiment: Suppose Mary knows the facts about pain but hasn't experienced it. As before, it would seem like her understanding of pain is incomplete. In fact, though Mary is a fictional character, there are real people who report having never experienced pain as an unpleasant sensation – a condition known as 'pain asymbolia'. In Russell's terminology, such people haven't personally experienced how unpleasant pain can be. But even people without pain asymbolia can become less familiar with pain and hardship during times when things are going well for them. All of us can temporarily lose the rich experiential grasp of what it is like to be distressed. So, when we consider the pain and suffering of others in the abstract and without directly feeling it, it is very much like trying to grasp the nature of redness while being personally acquainted only with a field of black and white. That, we argue, is where empathy comes in. Through experiential simulation of another's feelings, empathy affords us a rich grasp of the distress that others feel. The upshot is that empathy isn't just a subjective sensation. It affords us a more accurate understanding of others' experiences and emotions. Empathy is thus a form of knowledge that can be hard to bear, just as pain can be hard to bear. But that's precisely why empathy, properly cultivated, is a strength. As one of us has argued, it takes courage to empathically engage with others, just as it takes courage to see and recognize problems around us. Conversely, an unwillingness to empathize can stem from a familiar weakness: a fear of knowledge. So, when deciding complex policy questions, say, about immigration, resisting empathy impairs our decision-making. It keeps us from understanding what's at stake. That is why it is vital to ask ourselves what policies we would favor if we were empathically acquainted with, and so fully informed of, the plight of others.
