Speaker 1: Hey, y'all, we are finally back. Oh my goodness, it's
Speaker 1: been too long, man. So much life has happened, So
Speaker 1: much has happened, so much science has happened. Yes, so
Speaker 1: much nonscience has happened on somebody. And that's why we
Speaker 1: had to come back. I felt like when the world
Speaker 1: needed us the most, we disappeared like the avatar aang.
Speaker 1: It just was not right. Well, we are finally here
Speaker 1: to make it right. I'm TT and I'm Zakiah and
Speaker 1: from Spotify, this is Dope Labs. Welcome back to semester
Speaker 1: four of Dope Labs. We have missed you so much,
Speaker 1: but let's just jump into it. For the uninitiated, Dope
Speaker 1: Labs is a weekly podcast that mixes hardcore science, pop culture,
Speaker 1: and a healthy dose of friendship. This week, we're talking
Speaker 1: all about something that's been heavy on our minds and
Speaker 1: hearts for the last few months, science denial. But before
Speaker 1: we get into that, we have some exciting news that
Speaker 1: we want to tell y'all about. You thought you couldn't
Speaker 1: get enough before, Well, we're gonna find out more more, more,
Speaker 1: more Dumblamore, More Dope Lab, More Dope Lab. Moore, Hey,
Speaker 1: y'all ask for it. No more of the bi weekly stuff.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be in your ears every single week. And
Speaker 1: that's not the only big change that's happening. Semester four
Speaker 1: is coming exclusively to Spotify for free starting December sixteenth.
Speaker 1: So if you already listened to us on Spotify, keep
Speaker 1: doing what you're doing, and don't forget to follow Dope
Speaker 1: Labs and tap that little bell icon so you never
Speaker 1: missed when a new episode drops. Now after December sixteenth
Speaker 1: be able to hear new episodes of Dope Labs anywhere else.
Speaker 1: So if you don't listen to us on Spotify yet,
Speaker 1: be sure that you go ahead and make that change.
Speaker 1: Spotify is where you can listen to Dope Labs plus
Speaker 1: all your other favorite shows for free. All right, ze,
Speaker 1: I hope you're ready. Let's start the show. We're starting
Speaker 1: off this new semester with a real banger. This week,
Speaker 1: we're talking all about science denial. This has been a
Speaker 1: huge topic, especially when it comes to the pandemic, but
Speaker 1: we've also seen a lot of science denial reports in
Speaker 1: recent years with other issues too. Tit you like climate change, absolutely,
Speaker 1: we're really passionate about scientific information and combating science denial
Speaker 1: in general. I mean, it's why we started the podcast. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: we want science to be accessible for everybody, and part
Speaker 1: of that means having good information and the right tools
Speaker 1: to make decisions, especially when it comes to your health.
Speaker 1: So we really wanted to understand science denial, its history,
Speaker 1: and the motivations behind it. And trust us when we
Speaker 1: say this issue is not as simple as it might seem.
Speaker 1: So let's get into the rest of tap.
Speaker 2: But it's a sham Sam Sam Sam, shams Sam, But
Speaker 2: it's a sham sham.
Speaker 1: If you're new to Dope Labs. We typically structure our
Speaker 1: episodes into three main parts, the recitation, the dissection, and
Speaker 1: the conclusion. The recitations at the beginning of the lab
Speaker 1: where we get everybody on the same page and define
Speaker 1: what we know already and what we want to know
Speaker 1: by the end of the episode, right, And that's followed
Speaker 1: up by the dissection where we answer those questions in
Speaker 1: the recitation, where we talk to our guest expert and
Speaker 1: learn all the information we do our deep dive during
Speaker 1: this part of the episode, and then we get to
Speaker 1: the conclusion where we put a nice bow on everything.
Speaker 1: We kind of round up everything that we have learned
Speaker 1: throughout the rest of the lab and talk about any
Speaker 1: conclusions that we can make. All right, So for this
Speaker 1: episode about science denial, what do we know? Why are
Speaker 1: we talking about this? Well? I feel like science denials
Speaker 1: on the tip of everybody sung right now because of
Speaker 1: the virus spreading that shall not be named. No, we're
Speaker 1: in the middle of a pandemic. So this is a
Speaker 1: new experience, a new shared experience for all of us.
Speaker 1: And so there's a lot of people who are very confused,
Speaker 1: who are trying to get up to speed with the
Speaker 1: science around viruses, virus transmission, vaccines and everything like that.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of fear, absolutely, I think in
Speaker 1: addition to all those things you just said and fear,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of information of varying quality and truth
Speaker 1: being spread. If you're trying to make some decisions, it's
Speaker 1: hard to know who or what to believe, and you're
Speaker 1: just constantly bombarded with information. Yeah, and then we also
Speaker 1: know that science denial is affecting very specific communities more
Speaker 1: than others. The other thing I want to know is
Speaker 1: where do we draw the line from skepticism to denial,
Speaker 1: Because I feel like a healthy dose of skepticism is good, right.
Speaker 1: I think that helps you have like really great conversations. Right,
Speaker 1: But there's like this really thin line where things start
Speaker 1: to go left. Another question that I have is what
Speaker 1: can we do to check in on ourselves. I'm not
Speaker 1: coming from a place where I'm on a high horist.
Speaker 1: How do I check in with myself? How do I
Speaker 1: check myself if I'm falling victim to that? I think
Speaker 1: all of those are really good questions. Let's jump into
Speaker 1: the dissection. Our guests for today are doctor Gail Sinatra
Speaker 1: and doctor Barbara Hoefer.
Speaker 2: My name is Gale Sinatra, and I'm a professor at
Speaker 2: USC University of Southern California in the Rossier School of Education.
Speaker 3: And I am Barbara Hoefer. I'm recently retired from Middlebury College,
Speaker 3: so professor Amrita and that's in Vermont.
Speaker 1: Doctors Hofer and Sinatra published a book earlier this summer
Speaker 1: called Science Denial, Why It Happens and What to Do
Speaker 1: about It. Their book explores the psychological issues that keep
Speaker 1: folks from having a broad understanding of science. It also
Speaker 1: offers solutions for those wondering what they can do to
Speaker 1: help curb the spread of misinformation. And when we say
Speaker 1: we want to know about science denial, what we mean
Speaker 1: is we want to know why people may flat out deny,
Speaker 1: or maybe just a little bit doubt or resist scientific
Speaker 1: fact or general scientific conclusions. What's keeping them from accepting
Speaker 1: what's already been proven. It can feel really easy to say,
Speaker 1: not me, I'm not a victim of science denial. But
Speaker 1: it's not just accepting big issues like climate change or
Speaker 1: understanding that vaccine's work. It could also be how you
Speaker 1: decide to take risks, or if you choose to buckle
Speaker 1: up in your seat belt even though you know it
Speaker 1: can protect you in a crash. I think it's also
Speaker 1: these smaller nuanced things in our day to day lives
Speaker 1: as well. And everyone is susceptible, all of us, even
Speaker 1: the people that you know have been highly trained in
Speaker 1: the science field. We can all be a part of
Speaker 1: that group. And I think that is something that folks
Speaker 1: have to understand. What I still want to know a
Speaker 1: little bit more about is that difference between skepticism and
Speaker 1: stepping all the way over to science deny.
Speaker 3: We want people to be skeptical if you see one
Speaker 3: study with a small sample and there's some clickbait headline,
Speaker 3: be suspicious, be skeptical. That's the time to question it
Speaker 3: if it has not been substantiated, corroborated, supported with additional studies.
Speaker 1: TTU posted something the other day and I was like,
Speaker 1: spot on, Oh no, what did I say. I've seen
Speaker 1: a lot of crazy stuff on Twitter. You said it's
Speaker 1: been a year and a half or a year and
Speaker 1: nine months. If you're still doing their research, what kind
Speaker 1: of research is it? Yeah? I just feel like people
Speaker 1: are still saying I'm doing my research on coronavirus. I'm like, hello, yeah,
Speaker 1: you doing research. You're kind of just not doing anything
Speaker 1: and being stuck in your thought process, which I understand.
Speaker 1: This is a big topic to turn and swallow. Yes,
Speaker 1: especially if you have to get all the background skills,
Speaker 1: if you need to understand virology, immunology, molecular biology, vaccine design, sociology,
Speaker 1: human behavior, risk management, that's a big mountain to climb. Yes.
Speaker 1: And you know, we've talked about skepticism. We mentioned it
Speaker 1: a little bit earlier, but I think there's a difference
Speaker 1: between skepticism of information that you know, you don't know
Speaker 1: where the source is, it's just tumbling down your feed
Speaker 1: versus the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health
Speaker 1: telling you that the cases are rising in your area,
Speaker 1: and you're like, h, I don't believe what they're saying.
Speaker 1: That's not just skepticism right there. So how do we
Speaker 1: identify science denial?
Speaker 2: Then you don't see people who are very doubting and
Speaker 2: resisting science, hesitating to use an iPhone or get on
Speaker 2: a plane. They're not denying physics, they're not denying the
Speaker 2: technology that goes into Wi Fi. So it is this
Speaker 2: phenomena of selective denial, which really is driven by your motivations,
Speaker 2: your emotions. So you're picking and choosing what you like
Speaker 2: about science and what you don't like, and science doesn't
Speaker 2: work that way.
Speaker 1: That's such a good point. You know, science does not
Speaker 1: care about your feelings. It's not about our opinions or
Speaker 1: what we want to be true.
Speaker 2: It's about what the evidence suggests is our best understanding
Speaker 2: of the science at the time.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's so important to remember that science is backed
Speaker 1: up by research and evidence. For example, with masking and vaccine,
Speaker 1: scientists are doing studies to see how effective those measures
Speaker 1: are and then creating guidelines accordingly. And yes, these guidelines
Speaker 1: can change as the evidence changes as we learn more.
Speaker 1: But we'll talk a little bit more about that later.
Speaker 1: But I think we should start with the history of
Speaker 1: science denial. Tt let's rewind a little bit. Have we
Speaker 1: seen science denial before in different forms? And how did
Speaker 1: we get here?
Speaker 2: The history of science probably starts with science denial, doubt
Speaker 2: and resistance.
Speaker 3: We try to trace it back to Galileo and you
Speaker 3: think about how he was under house arrests for the
Speaker 3: beliefs that he had, how long it took for people
Speaker 3: to accept his theories. Think about Darwin, It took more
Speaker 3: than a n undred years for scientists to accept fully
Speaker 3: what he was proposing in the way of evolution.
Speaker 1: So, for real, it feels like science denial has been
Speaker 1: going on since the beginning of science itself, and in
Speaker 1: the last fifty years it's become more pervasive as there's
Speaker 1: been some outside meddling, so corporations realizing that fostering some
Speaker 1: science denial could help their bottom line. It all goes
Speaker 1: back to the money.
Speaker 3: Beginning with the tobacco industry, for example, were interested in
Speaker 3: trying to deflect the idea that somehow it was cancer causing,
Speaker 3: and they hired pr firms to so doubt, and the
Speaker 3: same companies are being used by Exxon and other corporations
Speaker 3: to make it look as though climate change isn't a
Speaker 3: certain fact.
Speaker 1: In fact, even as recently as twenty ten, Philip Morris
Speaker 1: has routinely argued that Marlboro gold cigarettes actually decrease the
Speaker 1: risk of cancer. That's wild, but that brings us to today.
Speaker 1: With a global pandemic and a steadily warming planet. It
Speaker 1: feels like people are holding their noses up at scientific
Speaker 1: evidence left and right. So this has made me ask
Speaker 1: is there an increase science of denial?
Speaker 2: I think the difference that we see is the amplification
Speaker 2: of misinformation through social media, and that's coupled with us
Speaker 2: living in our information bubbles where we get the same
Speaker 2: information and if it's misinformation, that's same misinformation reinforced over
Speaker 2: and over again and it becomes more credible. There's the
Speaker 2: joke that misinformation travels around the world before the truth
Speaker 2: gets up and puts its pants on. Misinformation is really compelling.
Speaker 2: It's sometimes interesting or intriguing or even funny to some people,
Speaker 2: and that gets the clicks. And as we know the
Speaker 2: way the algorithms are shaped, that more clicks gets more attention.
Speaker 1: We've talked about algorithms on social media before. What goes
Speaker 1: viral isn't always true. It really helps us understand why
Speaker 1: it's so important to talk about science denial right now.
Speaker 1: So when you think about that amplification and what we
Speaker 1: know about the brain, and the more you see something,
Speaker 1: the more is reinforced and you begin to believe it.
Speaker 1: I think all that makes sense in the current context.
Speaker 1: Sometimes people who are science deniers go overboard and say
Speaker 1: I'm just waiting for the science. Well, part of the
Speaker 1: science is assessing risk. Early on and even later in
Speaker 1: the pandemic, was people outright saying no to mass like,
Speaker 1: it's not gonna keep you one hundred percent safe. Well, ma'am,
Speaker 1: if it's going to keep you ninety percent safe, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna say, that's still useful, right, And I think that's
Speaker 1: the part that we start to see this kind of
Speaker 1: doubling down on. I'm so scientific. I know ninety is
Speaker 1: less than one hundred, but I think you also know
Speaker 1: ninety is higher than zero. You know, It's like if
Speaker 1: you look at the forecast and it says there's a
Speaker 1: seventy percent chance of rain, you see that and then
Speaker 1: you're like, Okay, let me take my umbrella just in case. Right,
Speaker 1: this is the same thing. You don't say, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna take my umbrella because it's not one hundred percent
Speaker 1: chance of rain exactly. So why don't you apply that
Speaker 1: same logic to mass. Now that we have an understanding
Speaker 1: of what science denial is, we want to understand what
Speaker 1: is causing people to flock to science denial. Let's get
Speaker 1: into the reasons. Doctor Sinatra and doctor Hoefer outline five
Speaker 1: explanations for science denial, doubt, and resistance. The first is
Speaker 1: mental shortcuts and cognitive biases, second is understanding beliefs on
Speaker 1: how and what you know. The third is motivated reasoning,
Speaker 1: fourth is social identity, and the fifth is emotions and
Speaker 1: attitudes and not attitude like the keys attitude, different attitude.
Speaker 1: The first explanation is mental shortcuts and cognitive biases. Right.
Speaker 1: Cognitive biases are kind of these mental gymnastics that we
Speaker 1: do so we don't have to run through all the
Speaker 1: processing every time. Yeah, so our brain is learning along
Speaker 1: the way. You know, A equals Z, and you don't
Speaker 1: have to do ABCDEFG all the way through. But sometimes
Speaker 1: these brains can trick us, and they learn something early
Speaker 1: on and they reinforce it over and over again. We're
Speaker 1: going to talk about that in a later episode Mind
Speaker 1: Over Matter. But you know, one type of cognitive bias
Speaker 1: is known as confirmation bias.
Speaker 3: Confirmation bias is this implicit tendency to seek, recall, affirm
Speaker 3: things that already fit with your existing beliefs. So everybody
Speaker 3: who's listening can probably think of a time when you
Speaker 3: googled something to find an answer. You already thought you
Speaker 3: knew what the answer was, and you're quick googling. As
Speaker 3: soon as you find it, right, you think, okay, that
Speaker 3: supports it, but you don't search laterally across to see
Speaker 3: if it's confirmed or if there's anything that contradicts it.
Speaker 3: That's confirmation bias.
Speaker 1: I think we all can remember stuff that we saw
Speaker 1: on the early Internet or like heard through the grape
Speaker 1: vine at school. Do you remember me sharing with you
Speaker 1: on Twitter where this guy said that he found shrimp
Speaker 1: tails and his Sentimento's christ And I was like, h
Speaker 1: I don't doubt it, because you know, a long time
Speaker 1: ago I saw this thing that said that like up
Speaker 1: to ten percent or something like that of cerial product
Speaker 1: could be unknown material. And as soon as I said
Speaker 1: it to you, I was like, hmm, let me check that,
Speaker 1: because I was like, I have never heard this. I
Speaker 1: don't believe that. And also, my today many years old
Speaker 1: brain knows that ten percent is a lot. I've eaten
Speaker 1: a lot of cereal in my day. I've never seen
Speaker 1: anything strange that confirmation biased, you know. I think we've
Speaker 1: been trained to always look for a countering point, make
Speaker 1: a liar out of me, make me wrong. That's how
Speaker 1: my Google searches look. I think. The other piece of
Speaker 1: this right, So, if we think of these mental shortcuts,
Speaker 1: the second arm of this is just how we think
Speaker 1: about knowing and learning in the first place.
Speaker 3: Another chapter that we have is on what psychologists call
Speaker 3: epistemic cognition, So it's what people believe about knowledge, how
Speaker 3: they think they know. And one of the issues is
Speaker 3: epistemic trust. Who do we trust as a source of knowledge.
Speaker 3: One of the things we talk about in the book
Speaker 3: are reasons why some people might not trust the medical community.
Speaker 1: This feels so relevant TT, especially in the face of
Speaker 1: people deciding whether they trust or don't trust the government
Speaker 1: and regulating organizations like the FDA, and even when we
Speaker 1: see these organizations overstepping each other, just like we see
Speaker 1: the CDC overruling the FDA, who is our regulatory agency,
Speaker 1: and the CDC is saying, yes, everybody should have a
Speaker 1: booster shot, right. I mean, when you see stuff like that,
Speaker 1: how do you know who to trust? Because they both
Speaker 1: are organizations that we look to for the facts, and
Speaker 1: especially after seeing such political influence within those organizations, it's
Speaker 1: hard to know. Hey, if it was susceptible, then is
Speaker 1: it susceptible now? Is it still unbiased? You know, it
Speaker 1: makes it really hard. We see the same thing with
Speaker 1: people being skeptical of mainstream media or which news stations
Speaker 1: they go to for their information, and it's concerning because
Speaker 1: the information is not the same. And we talked about
Speaker 1: this in an article that we wrote for Scientific American.
Speaker 1: You know, the roots of folks distrust of the scientific community,
Speaker 1: the medical community to be real, from force sterilization to
Speaker 1: the latest evaluations of disparities and health. Yeah, I mean, historically,
Speaker 1: bad things have happened to minoritized folks and to poor folks,
Speaker 1: and now that leads to poor outcomes for those people.
Speaker 1: It's embedded in the system, and it feels like a
Speaker 1: snowbal effect because it's self perpetuating. So you have folks
Speaker 1: who are going to receive medical treatment and receiving sub
Speaker 1: par care. That sub par care translates to terrible outcomes.
Speaker 1: And when they see that terrible care and terrible outcomes,
Speaker 1: the other people that are on the periphery, you know,
Speaker 1: family members, children, parents, they then say, I will not
Speaker 1: trust the medical system, and so they don't go get
Speaker 1: any type of preventative care, or maybe they don't have
Speaker 1: access to preventative care, and so then they continue to
Speaker 1: present with medical issues that are at much later stages
Speaker 1: and then they get poor care then, or even if
Speaker 1: they get good care, then they still have poor outcomes. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a vicious cycle of things. We even see things
Speaker 1: like that present day because I know that there are
Speaker 1: probably some people who think that's old school medicine, no sir,
Speaker 1: But when you think about the care that Serena Williams
Speaker 1: had when she was giving birth to her child, she
Speaker 1: almost died, right. She kept communicating that she was in
Speaker 1: a lot of pain, but she wasn't being believed. And
Speaker 1: that is something that studies have come out that have
Speaker 1: said there are a large group of doctors who believe
Speaker 1: that black people have a higher pain tolerance, and so
Speaker 1: they're treated differently, exactly, treated differently from top to bottom.
Speaker 1: So that means that black people are less likely to
Speaker 1: get pain medication. It's not even that you can earn
Speaker 1: enough money to move you into a different economic class
Speaker 1: and that protects you. It's about being black, even if
Speaker 1: I go to the best hospital. Look at Serena Williams,
Speaker 1: a world class athlete, the Serena Williams, so many grand slams,
Speaker 1: all of that, and she's still a victim of this.
Speaker 1: And so when you consider this right, it makes sense
Speaker 1: that people would have this mistrust or this hesitancy or
Speaker 1: resistance to information from the medical community, or the scientific community,
Speaker 1: or even the government.
Speaker 2: We also hear people say ask your doctor, as if
Speaker 2: everyone has a doctor they can just get on the phone.
Speaker 2: Do you have access, do you have a relationship with
Speaker 2: the doctor, do you know who you can go ask?
Speaker 2: Not everyone has that kind of access. Some people have
Speaker 2: hypothesized that Great Britain has had a larger percentage of
Speaker 2: people vaccinated because they have a universal health care system
Speaker 2: and everyone knows who their doctor is, and everyone knows
Speaker 2: where they can go and here, people don't necessarily know
Speaker 2: where to go, and they don't necessarily have good.
Speaker 1: Access, preach doctor Sinatra, and that makes all the sense right.
Speaker 1: Along with this historic and current difference in treatment for
Speaker 1: different groups, there's also the matter of access that you overlay.
Speaker 1: And we've heard a lot of things around vaccines where
Speaker 1: people are saying, oh, wow, well, people just get vaccinated.
Speaker 1: I'm like, hey, it's a little deeper than wrap. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not just am I going to go do this thing.
Speaker 1: I think that that's something that scientists, scientific communicators, and
Speaker 1: folks in the medical community need to take into account
Speaker 1: when we are communicating with folks who are skeptical or deniers,
Speaker 1: is that it's not coming from a place of misinformation.
Speaker 1: It's coming from real, lived experience, a real place, and
Speaker 1: it should be respected as such. And TT you hit
Speaker 1: the nail on the head saying that science, communicators and
Speaker 1: organizations need to consider who folks trust right and what
Speaker 1: their lived experiences may be.
Speaker 2: It's also about trust, So you trust people you identify with,
Speaker 2: and then you have mistrust for people you don't identify with.
Speaker 2: So while it's hard for us to understand why somebody
Speaker 2: would take a livestock dewormer rather than a vaccine.
Speaker 1: That's right. Folks have been taking ivermectin and that's a
Speaker 1: drug that's typically used as a parasitic de wormer for
Speaker 1: a livestock.
Speaker 2: It's about where they're finding that information. They don't trust
Speaker 2: the voices that talk about the safety and efficacy of
Speaker 2: the vaccine, but they are trusting people that there's alternative
Speaker 2: mechanisms medications to treat COVID, which has no basis. But
Speaker 2: they're hearing this information from people they identify with and
Speaker 2: that is who they trust.
Speaker 1: So someone in your community who you trust says something
Speaker 1: but there's no supporting scientific evidence, that can still sway
Speaker 1: people to action or inaction. We saw that with Nicki Minaj.
Speaker 1: What people grabbed onto and ran with is Nikki didn't
Speaker 1: take the vaccine and didn't go to the met gala
Speaker 1: because of it, and then she starts talking about some
Speaker 1: cousin's friend who has swollen testicles. And that kind of
Speaker 1: misinformation is so dangerous because people won't do their due diligence.
Speaker 1: They're going to say, I love Nikki, okay, I love Roman,
Speaker 1: and they will run with that information and they'll say
Speaker 1: that's all I need to know.
Speaker 3: We have realized that nobody trusts just one person. We
Speaker 3: all have multiple people in our worlds that we trust,
Speaker 3: and doctors and pastors, for example, can be very influential
Speaker 3: in terms of the vaccine.
Speaker 1: And this brings us right back to that algorithm problem though, right,
Speaker 1: because if the multiple people you trust are all in
Speaker 1: your bubble, they're all seeing the same shared misinformation, then
Speaker 1: it feels like everybody you trust is saying don't get vaccinated.
Speaker 1: The problem then is when people like I know somebody
Speaker 1: who didn't get vaccinated. They got COVID and they were
Speaker 1: really sick and they were in and out of the hospital,
Speaker 1: but then they wrote this really like cryptic post about
Speaker 1: maybe you should get vaccine. I'm going to tell you
Speaker 1: who to believe this and that, but I had this
Speaker 1: terrible experience. You think they got shared like all of
Speaker 1: their other misinformation? Do you think they came with that
Speaker 1: same hot fire? No? No, And part of that may
Speaker 1: be that it wasn't shared because other people have their
Speaker 1: own what we call motivated reasoning behind what they will
Speaker 1: and won't share or what they will and won't believe.
Speaker 1: And doctors Sinatra and Hoefer told us that motivated reasoning
Speaker 1: is another explanation for science denial.
Speaker 2: Motivated reasoning is that you can either reason towards what
Speaker 2: we call an accuracy goal, like in other words, you
Speaker 2: want to find out the accurate information, or you can
Speaker 2: often subconsciously reason towards a desired conclusion. So that comes
Speaker 2: into play when you are weighing information that you've read online.
Speaker 1: Doctor Sinatra gave us an example of motivated reasoning around
Speaker 1: stem cell therapyes potential to help with Parkinson's disease.
Speaker 2: So perhaps you have a friend who has Parkinson's, and
Speaker 2: so you read articles about whether stem cell therapy can
Speaker 2: help with Parkinson's. You may be overly enthusiastic about the
Speaker 2: potential for this therapy and you may reason that it's
Speaker 2: great when it may be only okay or even not great. Conversely,
Speaker 2: if you have concerns about the use of stem cells
Speaker 2: and you question where they come from and you're wondering
Speaker 2: if they've been used ethically, and then you look at
Speaker 2: a stem cell therapy online, you may reason that, oh,
Speaker 2: this stem cell therapy isn't any good, it doesn't work
Speaker 2: at all. So that's a motivated reasoner. Whether you're reasoning
Speaker 2: too positively or too negatively, based on and wanting the
Speaker 2: outcome to go towards what you're already believing.
Speaker 1: That's a really good point. It almost feels like how
Speaker 1: you do those Googles, you know, if you're already deciding something.
Speaker 1: Is one way we start typing into Google. Google starts
Speaker 1: to guess what you want to type. And if Google,
Speaker 1: which it does, knows like your search history, it's collecting
Speaker 1: all this data from your emails and all these things
Speaker 1: like that, it'll probably lead you to the exact place
Speaker 1: you're looking for, the exact answer that you want answered
Speaker 1: in the exact way that you want it answered to
Speaker 1: confirm your thoughts. Another psychological challenge that can lead to
Speaker 1: science denial is related to our social identity.
Speaker 3: We are all tribal people. We all belong to certain groups,
Speaker 3: and we draw our identity from those groups. And when
Speaker 3: the groups believe certain things, we tend to believe certain things.
Speaker 3: It's a shorthand for thinking about what to believe without
Speaker 3: even maybe looking into it in a lot of depth.
Speaker 3: So if you think about the things that many people
Speaker 3: believe right now, about whether, for example, the vaccine causes infertility,
Speaker 3: which it does not, we know that conclusively. But if
Speaker 3: people have heard that on Facebook or heard it from
Speaker 3: their friends or their neighbors or their identity group, they
Speaker 3: go online, it's not hard to find confirming evidence for
Speaker 3: that and just quit without looking at the fact that
Speaker 3: there is no science evidence behind it. And so we
Speaker 3: have seen some serious tribalism around science denial in ways
Speaker 3: that shock even us who have been writing and thinking
Speaker 3: about this for a long time, of looking at the
Speaker 3: degree to which people will think, this is what my
Speaker 3: people believe, this is what I'm going to believe. And
Speaker 3: we were both dismayed to find that in Missouri last
Speaker 3: week there were people wearing disguises when they went to
Speaker 3: get vaccinations because they didn't want people they knew to
Speaker 3: see them, violating the values that they had upheld that
Speaker 3: masking was bad and that vaccinations were unnecessary.
Speaker 1: You know, this reminds me of and it goes right
Speaker 1: back to Missouri. There was this state representative, Bill Kidd,
Speaker 1: and he had written this post. He said, no, we
Speaker 1: didn't get the vaccine. We're Republican. That's like a social
Speaker 1: identity thing, right. Yeah. I wonder if there was any
Speaker 1: other time in the history of this country where things
Speaker 1: are so strongly tied to a political affiliation where you
Speaker 1: can guess someone's stance on a medical issue outside of
Speaker 1: abortion based on their political party. That's wild to me.
Speaker 1: I think the thing that we both understand, and we're
Speaker 1: seeing more and more people start to understand, is that
Speaker 1: all of this relates to emotions and attitudes and feelings.
Speaker 1: A lot of times, as scientists were trying to just
Speaker 1: look at the facts and only think about the facts,
Speaker 1: and we think of people as these vessels that we
Speaker 1: just pour the facts into. Okay, now, they got it.
Speaker 1: But what we know is how we feel in our emotions.
Speaker 1: They affect how we understand and feel about scientific evidence
Speaker 1: when it's presented to us. Right, And that's the fifth
Speaker 1: reason for science denial.
Speaker 2: Our emotions are part of how we think and reason,
Speaker 2: and they have to be You can't put your emotions
Speaker 2: in a box. But you have to use use your
Speaker 2: emotions in service of good thinking and reasoning, and you
Speaker 2: have to be thoughtful about that. So you can't let
Speaker 2: your emotions derail a good reasoning process. So if you're
Speaker 2: too anxious about climate change, for example, you can shut
Speaker 2: down and not want to engage. And if you're too
Speaker 2: angry about climate change, maybe contributing to a change in
Speaker 2: how you'd have to live your lifestyle. You also shut
Speaker 2: down and don't want to engage. So you have to
Speaker 2: think about your emotions and how they're affecting your thinking
Speaker 2: and then use them in service of your thinking.
Speaker 1: Yes, and is it just me or does it feel
Speaker 1: like it could apply to many areas in our life
Speaker 1: and not just science denial. It sounded like doctor Sinatra
Speaker 1: was preaching a little bit. Maybe it is a read. Okay,
Speaker 1: you already know some of y'all just got your edges
Speaker 1: snatched and you don't even realize it. Check the mirror.
Speaker 1: Are you bollved? So let's take a break and when
Speaker 1: we come back, we'll get into some of the solutions
Speaker 1: for challenging science denial. We're back and we've been talking
Speaker 1: to doctor Gail Sinatra and doctor Barbara Hoefer about their
Speaker 1: fascinating new book. It's called Science Detile, Why It Happens
Speaker 1: and What to Do About It, out now from Oxford
Speaker 1: University Press. In the first half of the dissection, we
Speaker 1: learned what science denial is and what it isn't. Just
Speaker 1: to recap, we went through five reasons for science denial,
Speaker 1: mental shortcuts, and cognitive biases, beliefs on how and what
Speaker 1: you know, motivated reasoning, social identity, and emotions and attitudes.
Speaker 1: So now let's get into the solutions. What can we
Speaker 1: do about it?
Speaker 3: Often the solutions are talked about as though it's one
Speaker 3: on one individuals making change in their own thinking, and
Speaker 3: it's more than that. We need solutions at a higher level.
Speaker 3: And for example, a couple of years ago, Twitter started
Speaker 3: responding if you tried to retweet something that you had
Speaker 3: not even opened, you just like the headline, that you
Speaker 3: get a little message back that says would you like
Speaker 3: to read it first? And that moves people from system
Speaker 3: one to system two thinking in that moment.
Speaker 1: Nobel Prize winning psychologist Daniel Khanneman talks about system one
Speaker 1: and system two thinking in his book Thinking Fast and Slow.
Speaker 3: So system one is that very quick intuitive response, that
Speaker 3: is that gut level confirmation bias, for example, and system
Speaker 3: two is the slower, analytical, thoughtful aspect of the mind.
Speaker 3: And a lot of the times we're operating on system one,
Speaker 3: and it works for us.
Speaker 1: A lot of times we're using system one, and that's okay.
Speaker 1: You often need to make fast decisions, and you don't
Speaker 1: need to tire your brain out over and over. So,
Speaker 1: for example, if you're driving and you need to make
Speaker 1: a split second decision, System one is your go to then,
Speaker 1: But it's.
Speaker 3: Not a great thing when we're trying to figure out
Speaker 3: should I inject bleach into my system in order to
Speaker 3: address COVID do some more work. Don't just do it
Speaker 3: because you just found it online. Are some friends said
Speaker 3: to you or you saw it on Facebook?
Speaker 1: Instead, slow down, yes, absolutely, take a beat and really
Speaker 1: look for substantial evidence. Like it does not serve you
Speaker 1: to get to the answer quickly if it is the
Speaker 1: wrong answer. So this is great to think about in
Speaker 1: this kind of System one versus System two. And it
Speaker 1: seems like, you know, Twitter and even the things on
Speaker 1: Instagram that say this is about vaccine blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: those things are prompting system too, trying to get you
Speaker 1: to engage more analytically. I mean, it's great to see
Speaker 1: this kind of stuff on social media and where information
Speaker 1: is being shared, but it still feels like there's a
Speaker 1: lot we can do as individuals to combat science denial
Speaker 1: as well. Yeah, and one of those things is practicing
Speaker 1: more balanced and informed research, especially when you're doing your
Speaker 1: goo do.
Speaker 2: Your own research means google it. For most people, I
Speaker 2: can't go do research on ice cores or ocean acidification.
Speaker 2: That's just not going to happen. So when we say
Speaker 2: do your own research, it's really not realistic because you
Speaker 2: really can't dive into the research the way the scientists do.
Speaker 2: You look for information online and you have to be
Speaker 2: very discerning. That takes time, it takes effort, and you
Speaker 2: have to know what you're looking for, what to be
Speaker 2: aware of, for example, the source who paid for this research,
Speaker 2: who's sharing this information, and to be able to evaluate
Speaker 2: that takes a lot of awareness and education.
Speaker 1: The whole point of googling something is to get answers quickly.
Speaker 1: When you think of it that way, it's kind of
Speaker 1: counterintuitive to slow your brain down and really approach a
Speaker 1: subject analytically. And that's okay if you're looking for the
Speaker 1: best fall boot right, But I think when it comes
Speaker 1: to making big decisions about your health, that kind of
Speaker 1: quick judgment is not going to serve you will. One
Speaker 1: of my favorite things to do when I'm really trying
Speaker 1: to get knee deep into the information is scholar dot
Speaker 1: Google dot com. For peer reviewed research. Yes, you know,
Speaker 1: when we think about it, that's what these PhDs are. Well,
Speaker 1: at least a large part of it is in research
Speaker 1: and the ability to look for information, judge it, combine
Speaker 1: it with other pieces of information to figure out what
Speaker 1: the landscape is and to say, here are some of
Speaker 1: the holes or here are some of the unknowns, and
Speaker 1: knowing whether or not you have the tools to answer
Speaker 1: some of those questions. That's always what I say. Is
Speaker 1: One thing that I learned from getting a PhD is
Speaker 1: that I don't know anything. I'm skeptical of anybody who
Speaker 1: thinks they know everything about a topic. I establish myself
Speaker 1: as an expert in a very specific field. People come
Speaker 1: to me and they ask me questions, and I feel
Speaker 1: absolutely confident saying I don't know. That's one of my
Speaker 1: favorite answers. But the next is saying, how do we
Speaker 1: get to the right answer?
Speaker 3: Right? Like?
Speaker 1: I don't know? But what questions can we ask? Yes?
Speaker 1: Like and we can do that together Dope labs. You know,
Speaker 1: I think this really makes me think about how we
Speaker 1: teach people to ask questions and even what we teach science,
Speaker 1: as I think so often science is taught as this
Speaker 1: series of facts, and the truth is that it should
Speaker 1: be more of kind of probing questions, right to understand,
Speaker 1: to find the boundaries of what you do and don't know,
Speaker 1: like you just said. And I think that's been a
Speaker 1: lot of the conversation, like, Oh, we've been lagging in
Speaker 1: STEM and science education for so long. Is science education
Speaker 1: the answer to all of this? I don't know. I
Speaker 1: think maybe it's just a piece of the puzzle to
Speaker 1: getting us to a better place.
Speaker 2: We would argue, yes, let's improve science education, but you're right,
Speaker 2: it's not just about more science content. What we think
Speaker 2: students need to learn is more about how science is done,
Speaker 2: the process of science. For example, at the beginning of COVID,
Speaker 2: information kept shifting about masks and whether to wear them
Speaker 2: or not, and whether you could contract COVID from touch
Speaker 2: and surfaces and whether you had to spray down your groceries.
Speaker 3: They didn't understand that this is what scientists do. They
Speaker 3: chip away at a problem, they work on it, they
Speaker 3: try to corroborate what they know, and that this has
Speaker 3: been done very very well in this period of time.
Speaker 3: But a lot of people have dismissed science because they think, ah,
Speaker 3: what do they know? They just keep changing their minds.
Speaker 2: But in fact, the strength of science is that it
Speaker 2: does change based on new evidence, and I think we
Speaker 2: have not taught that enough.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, as doctor Sinatra and doctor Hoefer explain, it's also
Speaker 1: about educating people on how science and the scientific process
Speaker 1: actually works. And by the way, that's also why we
Speaker 1: decided to structure this podcast the way that we do. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think we're constantly asking new questions and taking in
Speaker 1: the information we have and saying, what kind of conclusions
Speaker 1: do we come to based on what we learned, and
Speaker 1: what else do we see that we don't know? You know,
Speaker 1: often our conclusion is just more questions. And I think
Speaker 1: we've also seen this over and over again during COVID, right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you think back to the early stages of the pandemic,
Speaker 1: people are like, we just want something to make this over,
Speaker 1: and it's like, oh, hey, we have vaccines, and then
Speaker 1: folks are saying, I don't know if I'm going to
Speaker 1: have a vaccine. And then now people are saying we
Speaker 1: should get a booster, should we not, whether it's effective,
Speaker 1: who should get them? You know, I think we're constantly
Speaker 1: just collecting data. We're seeing what's happening in other countries.
Speaker 1: But we're also seeing that there are some things separate
Speaker 1: from just the hardcore science, but around social interaction and
Speaker 1: behavior that make some things transferable to the United States
Speaker 1: and some things are not, you know, And all of
Speaker 1: that is part of that reiteration, right, and that constant
Speaker 1: morphing of science, of everybody bringing things in and some
Speaker 1: people saying, oh that's no good, toss it out. You know,
Speaker 1: the quality is poor there. All of that is the
Speaker 1: constant proofreading and editing of the scientific narrative, I think.
Speaker 3: And then the research that Gail and I have each
Speaker 3: done independently and coincidentally, we've discovered that students are overly
Speaker 3: schooled in the scientific method. They think that every scientist
Speaker 3: does this controlled experiment with a hypothesis and a control group,
Speaker 3: and so as a result, they dismiss some of the
Speaker 3: findings that require more abstraction, more inferential reasoning, more observation. So,
Speaker 3: for example, climate change is really confusing to people like that, Well,
Speaker 3: how do they know they didn't do an experiment.
Speaker 2: Well, that's why I think some people really were taken
Speaker 2: aback when the science changed so quickly about COVID, because
Speaker 2: perhaps they were taught that here's a textbook full of
Speaker 2: facts about science, and they're the same textbook we use
Speaker 2: five years ago and nothing's changed. Then this is how
Speaker 2: science is. And of course science is not a collection
Speaker 2: of facts. Science is a process. A science is an
Speaker 2: approach to evidence. It's an attitude, as Barber said, and
Speaker 2: we need to teach it like that. People understand that,
Speaker 2: of course science changes. Of course there's new information, and
Speaker 2: you can use a scientific attitude in your day to
Speaker 2: day life.
Speaker 1: TT you always say this, You've got to be willing
Speaker 1: to change your mind. Yes, you've been talking about scientific
Speaker 1: attitude all this time, and I really believe that for
Speaker 1: most people, the hardest part is unlearning. Yes, going into
Speaker 1: something feeling like you know something is a fact and
Speaker 1: then finding out that it is not. Unlearning that fact.
Speaker 1: It's really really difficult. I think that's something that's hard
Speaker 1: for everyone. But you have to be open to the
Speaker 1: idea of unlearning. And once you are open to it,
Speaker 1: then you can really enter into these conversations and say, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm hoping to have in my mind change because new
Speaker 1: information comes in. And the last piece of the puzzle,
Speaker 1: beyond organizations and individuals, is science communicators, researchers and professionals themselves.
Speaker 1: We need to open up the scientific community and make
Speaker 1: it more accessible to everyone.
Speaker 2: We have too many scientists who just talk to each other,
Speaker 2: who publish in journals that only other scientists have access
Speaker 2: to their behind firewalls, and then when they go to
Speaker 2: talk to the general public, none of us humans can
Speaker 2: understand them. So we need to do a better job
Speaker 2: training our scientists to be science communicators. We need to
Speaker 2: develop their ability to communicate better about their work. Dope
Speaker 2: Labs is an excellent example of what we can do,
Speaker 2: which is make science more accessible to the general public.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we have a lot to do as
Speaker 1: scientific communicators. We do a lot of work with this show,
Speaker 1: trying to bring science to the people and do it
Speaker 1: in a way that makes sense for everyone, in a
Speaker 1: way that's fun for us and you know, hopefully fun
Speaker 1: for everybody else to listen to. But I think that
Speaker 1: for such a long time, the way that science was
Speaker 1: communicated it was community in a way to big up
Speaker 1: the scientists. But now we're finding that that does not
Speaker 1: serve the people. No, and we do science in order
Speaker 1: to advance our world, and if we don't include the
Speaker 1: people we are trying to serve as scientists. What is
Speaker 1: the point If we.
Speaker 2: In education don't do a better job promoting digital literacy,
Speaker 2: algorithmic literacy, critical literacy so that we can have critical
Speaker 2: thinkers and students in K through twelve and higher education
Speaker 2: who can evaluate evidence and think critically about it, then
Speaker 2: we're going to continue to have these challenges.
Speaker 1: So we're trying something new. Every now and then, TT
Speaker 1: and I will share one thing that we either came across, experience,
Speaker 1: want you to experience, or know about in our lives. TT,
Speaker 1: what's your one thing this week? So my one thing
Speaker 1: this week is that I actually saw on Instagram that
Speaker 1: Jordan Peele was selling the get Out screenplay with all
Speaker 1: this extra information and the entire script, and so I
Speaker 1: jumped on that asap and it's really really cool. It
Speaker 1: has some words from Tanana Revedo, which is a kid
Speaker 1: I know you're a big fan, and then we get
Speaker 1: some extra context from Jordan Peel. There's a section in
Speaker 1: the back that has deleted scenes, so it lets you
Speaker 1: know like what they were thinking about adding but ended
Speaker 1: up on the cutting room floor, And there's an alternative
Speaker 1: ending that's at the very end. So I'm really looking
Speaker 1: forward to reading this and just seeing all the little
Speaker 1: notes from each scene that made get Out become what
Speaker 1: we know it today. Awesome. I didn't even know that
Speaker 1: was happening. What's your one thing? My one thing is
Speaker 1: really based on preparing for this lab. When I started
Speaker 1: reading Science Denial, I really became interested in what I
Speaker 1: considered irrational behavior, and so I picked up a book
Speaker 1: that was already on my shelf. It came out in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, but it felt so timely and
Speaker 1: felt like it read me for filth Okay, Predictably Irrational
Speaker 1: by Dan Airily, who is actually at Duke right now.
Speaker 1: There when we were there, I don't think. But it's
Speaker 1: like behavioral economics. It helps us understand why we do
Speaker 1: some of the things that we do, and how we
Speaker 1: actually are irrational, and we can predict some of our
Speaker 1: irrational decision making. I love that. Okay, So when you're
Speaker 1: finished with your book, I'll give you the get Out book.
Speaker 1: We'll do a book exchange and so that I can
Speaker 1: get my lap with your and you'll have all my
Speaker 1: notes and highlights. I love that. That's my favorite thing.
Speaker 1: That's it for LAP thirty seven. If you have some
Speaker 1: other stuff to think about, some more questions, please be
Speaker 1: sure to call us at two O two five six
Speaker 1: seven seven zero two eight and tell us what you thought.
Speaker 1: We'll give us an idea for a lap you think
Speaker 1: we should do this semester. You know we like to
Speaker 1: hear from you. That's two O two five seven zero
Speaker 1: two eight. If you love today's episode, there's so much
Speaker 1: more for you to dig into on our website. There
Speaker 1: will be a cheat sheet for today's lab, additional links
Speaker 1: and resources in the show notes. Plus you can sign
Speaker 1: up for our newsletter check it out at Dope labspodcast
Speaker 1: dot com. You can find us on Twitter and Instagram
Speaker 1: at Dope Labs Podcast, and TT's on Twitter and Instagram
Speaker 1: at dr Underscore t Sho, and you can find Zakia
Speaker 1: on Twitter and Instagram at z Said So. And don't
Speaker 1: forget to follow Dope Labs on Spotify and tap the
Speaker 1: bill icon so you never miss when a new episode
Speaker 1: drops special thanks to today's guest experts, doctor Gail M.
Speaker 1: Sinatra and doctor Barbara K. Hoefer. Their book Sigence Denial,
Speaker 1: Why It Happens and What to Do About It is
Speaker 1: available now from Oxford University Press. Check out IndieBound dot org,
Speaker 1: where you can find your nearest independent bookstore and pick
Speaker 1: it up. Dope Labs is a Spotify original production from
Speaker 1: Mega Ownmedia Group. Our producers are Jenny Ratlickmast and Lydia
Speaker 1: Smith of Wave Runner Studios. Editing in sound design by
Speaker 1: Rob Smerciak, Mixing by Cannis Brown. Original music composed and
Speaker 1: produced by Taka Yasuzawa and Alex Sugier from Spotify. Our
Speaker 1: executive producer is Gina Delveack, and creative producers are Baron
Speaker 1: Farmer and Candace Manriquez Rinn Special thanks to Shirley Ramos
Speaker 1: Yasmin of Fifi, camu Elolia, Till krat Key and Brian
Speaker 1: Marquis executive producers from Mega Own Media Group all Right Us,
Speaker 1: T T Show Dia and Zakiah Wattley