Cue the Simian Symphony

There’s a fascinating article in the New York Times about something social scientists call a cascade. It’s a process by which one expert’s wrong opinion spreads to other experts until they all believe it must be true because all the experts say so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html

It makes you wonder if there are cascades in action right now that are fooling entire fields of experts. (My regular readers know where this is heading.)

As I understand a cascade, bad information originates from one source, spreads until it becomes common knowledge, and any dissenting data is ignored. That’s very different from, for example, the theory of evolution, where many experts are creating mountains of confirming evidence. There’s a big difference between one guy being wrong and thousands of experts being wrong about a thousand different things. So the theory of evolution doesn’t fit the cascade hypothesis, right?

But consider this. The INTERPRETATION for all the evidence of evolution goes back to one guy: Darwin. If he got that wrong, and no one at the time had a better explanation, you have all the conditions for a cascade.

Here’s a little thought experiment. Suppose Darwin’s original theory had been that evolution was directed by aliens who had visited Earth in its early days. He’d have plenty of circumstantial evidence for that theory because you can find all sorts of ancient wonders that seem too advanced for the societies of the time. And the evidence of alien involvement wouldn’t be much worse than his original scant evidence for evolution itself, which involved staring at bird beaks and the like. All the strongest evidence for evolution came after Darwin.

Imagine Darwin hypothesizing that the pyramids were too difficult for humans to build, so aliens must have helped. By the time scientists figured out how humans could have built pyramids with clever engineering, experts in the field of “alien evolution” would have a thousand more examples of alien influence that had not yet been debunked. The alien influence part of the explanation could easily cascade.

With the hypothetical alien theory of evolution, even the gaps in the fossil record would seem like confirmation. Of course there would be gaps, because the aliens manipulated our DNA and caused the changes to happen in spurts. And the aliens only visited every million years or so.

Now imagine what happens to the lone scientist who proposes that something called natural selection is the mechanism for evolution. The common wisdom in my imaginary scenario is that aliens did it. The poor bastard with his idea of natural selection would be ostracized from the field.

I’m not saying aliens caused evolution. And I’m not saying the current theory of evolution is wrong because of a cascade. But it’s a safe bet that SOMETHING you consider just as true as evolution is the result of a cascade and we’ll find out later.

Comments

[CLains]

Bill Hicks on evolution; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R370YkYhV0w

[Steven McDaniel]

"..But in the meantime, nothing else makes sense the way evolution does and exploring that avenue (and perhaps eventually disproving it) seems to be the best way to go. That is, until someone has a better suggestion...."
The Hollywood Nun

No, Sister, creation makes sense. The notion that over generations some potentially sentient slime developed neural networks, and complex musculature, a brain, visual and auditory senses interfacing with the musculature, neural networks, and brain including a fully functioning digestive system etc etc etc all by itself makes no sense at all. Congratulations to you people for separating science from sense so skillfully over this last century, so that anyone who 'disses' evolution is now branded foolish and unscientific, and forbidden access to speak in schools by the same Supreme Court who let off OJ Simpson. You have brought up a generation who, even from a purely logical standpoint, emphatically call darkness light, and professing themselves to be wise have become fools. Enjoy your mutual self congratulations over your supposed intellectual high ground, but it still doesn't make sense.

[Kingsofnowhere]

Speaking of buissness me and my sons have a site called kingsofnowhere.com. You should try it out

[Steven McDaniel]

"Please stop feeding the religious guys their creationist fix"
Mark Twain

He's not, Mark, - he's just thinking for himself on the issue of evolution. You ought to try it, although it might be like quitting BS cold turkey..

[The Hollywood Nun]

I read almost all your blogs and am starting to believe you really are dissing the whole evolution thing. May I ask (and perhaps someone can lead me to where the answer is, if it's already been addressed) what you think is a good explanation for where we all came from, and how to explain the genetic and physical similarities and differences between animals and people and explanations for how animals seem to adapt over time to changes in the environment filling in the available niches of food and shelter surpluses? Because although I respect skepticism I am just not sure I can recall anyone giving an explanation that is any better. If evolution as scientists seem to understand it proves to be wrong, then great, that's what science is all about, finding out the truth. But in the meantime, nothing else makes sense the way evolution does and exploring that avenue (and perhaps eventually disproving it) seems to be the best way to go. That is, until someone has a better suggestion.

[Roby Bang]

But then again...who's to say that aliens DIDN'T do all that? Physics EXPLAINS how the pyramids were built, but it doesn't prove that ancient Egyptians were capable of figuring all of that out. I once read a story where Earth turned out only to be a little alien kid's form of an ant farm, which he destroyed because he got bored with it. This would explain God, the fact that Earth seems to be the only planet capable of life, and other mysteries we can't explain. Of course, there would be no way to prove that.

[Sondra]

I can recognize the false ones, even when they've been around for a while. Every year, some scientist announces something I've known, and have been ridiculed for believing, all my life.

[Bruce Harrison]

As Dr. Michael Crichton wrote:

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

"And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

I'm sure most everyone here has heard that you should drink eight glasses of water per day. Have you ever wondered what scientific research led to that discovery? Would it surprise you to find out that there wasn't any, and moreover, no one has been able to trace that dictum to anyone? It's an urban myth, with no basis in scientific or medical fact -- but watch how many times you hear it.

If you'd like to see the biggest, fattest, most expensive example of "consensus" in the world today, just follow this link:

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

It might open your eyes. Maybe.

[Mark]

"Mark,
Maybe because you don't have the wit to understand what Mr. Adams is talking about you feel compelled to disparage him so you'll feel less self-conscious about your own intellectual shortcomings.

Posted by: bcammack"

And are you disparaging me becuse you don't have the wit to understand me?

See how this goes. You can disagree with my opinion, but when it comes to "understanding" a third party, you can't attack the person making the statement, it merely is your interpretation of "understanding" of a third party, and equally as open to being wrong.

[Mark]

"I do wonder if we sit between chimps and gorillas though, which seems to be your implication. Modern humans are larger than chimpanzees but we are really quite a bit more frail - more gracile - than they are.

neopolitan"

I suspect our continued existence probably had more to do with us moving away from the congested chimp/gorilla habitat. We stopped competing with them and started competing with jackals/wolves (scavengers and endurance hunters).

[Veda]

Yes, I've always felt that the pride science takes in being absolute, is a bit over-inflated.

Every theory is based on an assumption. Every assumption is proved on the basis of evidence. But if obtaining knowledge is a never-ending process, then logically, the gathering of evidence never stops, and so any conclusion you reach has been reached on the basis of incomplete evidence. So, in effect, every theory is temporary. It can be disproved in the face of contradicting evidence found later, and as such can't be taken as an absolute.

There, that takes care of my need to feel all smug and self-satisfied on a Monday.

[Jonathan]

"actualy astronomy is probably the worst for cascading. just recently they found out that orion nebula was 300 light-years closer then they had figured. witch means the stars are older because there not as bright as we thought they were. if this distance is off how do we know there estimate for the age of the universe is correct, or that its even expanding. mabye their equipment isnt calibrated corectly. and how many theories are based on these distances that are probably wrong."

That's not a cascade effect. What you're describing is observational limitations. One may as well say "since nobody is omniscient, everything they think they know are probably wrong". The collection of modern data and theory depend solely on the caveat that at any point in time, new data may arrive to alter current theory.

The cascade effect is when new data (or existing data) is interpreted in an illogical fashion by one person, and that spreads like "common knowledge". While I'm not saying that this doesn't occur, that's why peer reviews are in place. This type of "infection" of bad theories isn't really all that common.

All the article demonstrates is how the general public, through lazy reporters, seem to gain "bad knowledge". This is a fact of life. People who spend their entire lives studying a subject will obviously find new data and adjust/correct their theories non-stop. The public, who do not spend as much time, cannot possibly be expected to keep up with the latest and greatest (and most accurate) theory.

Therefore, there is a conception that "science is always wrong" *because* the public expects these great scientists to be infallible. Because there is this mistaken notion that if medical scientists say "ice cream is bad for you" then that is the rule of natural law. That's not how science works.

[Brilliand]

Scott is indeed a philosopher. Anyone who thinks about philosopher things is a philosopher.

I agree with Scott on some points, and I disagree on others. I will not say which. But I will say this: "Cascade" is not a valid argument against anything. It can apply to anything, and therefore it is useless for debunking. Its only possible uses are to (like Dogbert) control the world through stupidity, and (the exact opposite) to actually get somewhere in science. Because if we didn't frequently believe things just because we heard them, we would never know enough to create something new.

I take the theory of gravity on faith, because if I tried to work it out on my own I would accomplish nothing else. All of science is a series of guesses that seems to work, and that's a good thing.

[grey]

I think an important point that needs to be made is the following: although its quite likely that much of what we think we know now is the result of a "cascade", we don't know *which* aspects of current knowledge they may be. All we can do is continue to use the models we have that currently fit observations the best, keep trying to make improvements and learn more, and drop theories that cease to be useful when (and not until) contradicting evidence appears.

Like what was done in physics with Newtonian Mechanics, until relativity and quantum theory came along. We don't look back now and think, "God, were we stupid to think Newton was right", because Newtonian mechanics *did* appear to explain, very well, the observations we made about the world. We wouldn't have gained anything, and more likely would have *lost* a great deal, if we had discarded Newtonian physics at the outset "because it may be proven wrong some time in the future." So to say now that a currently valid scientific theory has less value because it may be the result of a cascade, is meaningless.

Note that I'm talking only about scientific theories, because they come out of a framework that by definition works by modifying and correcting models as new data and observations come in.

Also, lots of people agreeing vehemently about something may be a *necessary* symptom of a cascade, but its not *sufficient*. And lots of people have already pointed out that evolution by natural selection certainly didn't start out like a cascade, since it was by no means accepted because one clever guy said so.

[ross]

"You won't see one astronomer merely accepting the word of another astronomer that they've discovered an asteroid heading toward earth. It will be checked for accuracy again and again -- by professionals and by amateurs around the world."

actualy astronomy is probably the worst for cascading. just recently they found out that orion nebula was 300 light-years closer then they had figured. witch means the stars are older because there not as bright as we thought they were. if this distance is off how do we know there estimate for the age of the universe is correct, or that its even expanding. mabye their equipment isnt calibrated corectly. and how many theories are based on these distances that are probably wrong.
and superstring theory is stupid too

[Sid Leavitt]

It's possible that the alternate theory you cite is true, but the principle of Occam's Razor (sometimes called the Little Green Men principle -- appropriate in this case, huh?) asks us not to accept theories that add nothing to what we know while requiring us make additional assumptions (such as little green men acting behind the scenes where we can't see them).

That's one hell of a sentence, isn't it?

[Mike]

You're just pretending that you don't believe in evolution. Same way lots of people pretend they believe in god, when, actually, nobody does. The ones who say they are either want to, or are lying, or like to go along with others. Your motives are the opposite, but otherwise similar.

[Mike]

You're just pretending that you don't believe in evolution. Same way lots of people pretend they believe in god, when, actually, nobody does. The ones who say they are either want to, or are lying, or like to go along with others. Your motives are the opposite, but otherwise similar.

[Steven McDaniel]

"..You're absolutely right.
As for evolution: I hope you've gotten around to reading the relevant chapters in Ann Coulter's "Godless". I think you and she are thinking along the same lines, for the most part..."
Rich T
"Why the hell would anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex read anything written by Ann Coulter?"
Dave R
Actually. Ann Coulter's word on evolution (come on, Scott, read it, you blighter!) could be said to be out of date, as Darwin has already proven that a chimpanzee can produce a literary work. Much later, Richard Dawkins has provided confirmation of this, although some 'disabled' ones can only manage a sentence incorporating the words 'functioning cerebral cortex'. Actually, I tend to be in agreement with Steve Colbert, [I am an American - and so can you!], that Darwin really went to the Galapagos islands on Spring Break, got smashed out of his mind, and woke up with a monkey. Then he had to come up with the theory of evolution to make it 'OK'. BTW, the 'cascade theory' explains how a fairy tale like evolution became 'science', and belief in God got branded foolish and unscientific.

[michael loewinger]

I'm a medical student, and not a month goes by where I found out that medicine has completely changed their opinion on something I've been studying. (Great. So which answer on the test is now correct?) If I actually kept up with the literature, I could probably find one every day. Probably many of these are due to cascades. For future possible cascades I would nominate eating fat makes you sick. Any other widely believed diet belief and heparin prophylaxis for DVT's save lives, but of course there's no way to know yet.

[tux the penguin]

Yeah, Michael, sorry but the Holocaust denial thing is bullshit. There are mountains of evidence to prove that around 6 million Jews were systematically exterminated. Did you actually check the credentials of the "historical researchers" whose work you were examining? Ernst Zundel is a well-known anti-Semite.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Mark_Bonokoski/2005/03/02/946805.html

The reason it's illegal in many countries is because it's an offence to the families of those who died. Actually, scratch that, it's an offence to many people. The fact that one of the greatest tragedies of the last hundred years is being belittled by smug, ignorant racist "historians" is something that I personally find disgusting. The less these accusations come to light, the better.

If you want more information check out the Nizkor Project, founded by Ken McVay. McVay has been refuting the Holocaust conspiracy theories since 1991 and has received so many death threats from Neo-Nazis he no longer gives out his address. Does it bother you that these are the kind of people who agree with you?

[tony]

Example of a cascade - The internet before the dot com meltdown?

[gr8hands]

Scott,

You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned "where many experts are creating mountains of confirming evidence."

The cascading effect described in the article you provided (quoting information from economists, so the conclusions are of questionable accuracy to start with) was not with researchers creating evidence themselves, but others who tend not to do their own research.

Physicians rarely are doing their own experimentation on either pharmacology or surgical options. They rely on other doctors -- researchers, testing labs, double-blind clinical trials, etc. There is so much information that they often go by word of mouth rather than take the time to sift through the data presented and make their own decisions. There are so many reports and medical publications that you have to really focus on sub-sub-sub-categories in order to have any chance of staying on top of what is happening research-wise in your specialty.

In any expert field where this is not the case -- which is just about most -- this doesn't happen. You won't see one astronomer merely accepting the word of another astronomer that they've discovered an asteroid heading toward earth. It will be checked for accuracy again and again -- by professionals and by amateurs around the world.

You can't do that kind of independent testing with medicine or surgery -- for one, you actually have to be a medical doctor in the first place, and there are really strict hoops you have to jump through for this to take place. Or you can go to a foreign country and bypass all that "safety" stuff.

[Glenn]

This happens at so many levels. Many examples have already been posted, (journalism is one of the best) and I'll throw in art & literature. Someone decides a particular painting or artist is a "GREAT ARTIST", despite the fact that his painting looks like it was produced by vomitting directly onto the canvas. I despised half of what I read in "literature" classes in high school & college. Who decided they qualified as "classics?" The difference with art & literature is that it's generall ONLY the experts who like the stuff.

[brian]

OMG this would make such a cool episode of Star trek or Stargate SG-1

the Team/ ship arrive at a planet that looks like earth but everyone believes that all the stuff was caused by aliens!