What Have We Learned About Each Other?

Doug:
So, we have been doing these discussions for a few months now. What have you learned about your brother?

David:
Well, we started this blog to illustrate that there are two sides to every issue, and someone with an opposing view can also have very good reasons for holding that viewpoint. A differing viewpoint does not mean the other person is ignorant or crazy. They're just assembling the information and coming to a differing conclusion.

I do think I see a pattern in your arguments, however. If I were to try to summarize, the underlying theme is: No one is responsible for themselves. We are all subjected to the whims of our environment.

Your beliefs seems to be the African-American community is shooting up and killing the African-American community because of systemic racism in the police community. The abortion rate among African-Americans is so much higher than any other group because of systemic racism in America. African-Americans drop out of school at an alarming rate because they are subjected to systemic racism in the public school system. Women can't prevent themselves from getting pregnant, and must have access to abortion on-demand to solve the problem. The government has to step in to make sure someone who has no education or skills gets a pay raise to support their entire family because, well, they just can't get skills or an education in the public school system. No one has to take responsibility for their own decisions, or the outcome of their decisions, in your view. At least, that's how your arguments have played out so far. The government has to step in to remedy societies ills that are keeping people from reaching their potential, even though most of the barriers that are preventing individual success is brought about by poor decisions made by those individuals.

And what have you learned?

Doug:
I did not think that we started this blog to show two sides to every issue, because there aren't two sides to every issue. Some issues have many sides, and some don't have any sides at all, except for manufactured conflicts. In my mind, I am working with you to explore these "different ways of seeing," and trying to find out how we could be simultaneously so much alike, and yet so very different. How did this happen?

I also did not think that we would change anyone's mind. If people read this stuff, and think: "oh, that one brother (or the other) is not completely crazy" ... then great! But we haven't heard from anyone along such lines. People don't seem to change their minds very often these days. Perhaps it is seen as a sign of weakness?

I have learned quite a lot about you that I didn't know before. Here are some, in no particular order:

1. You are very passionate. Many of your positions are not just talking points. Rather you believe them deep in your heart. You get as angry as I do when you discuss such issues.

2. You have a deep-seated mistrust of "science." I put science in quotes because it seems like your idea of how science works (the process) is different from my experience. For example, you have mentioned that you believe that money drives science. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. For me, science is the ultimate democratic process... over time, most biases can be identified and contained. Also, the meaning science gives us can be subtle and not useful for politics. Consider this cartoon:

https://xkcd.com/882/

This is a cartoon about understanding "statistical significance." The finding is "green jelly beans are linked to acne." That is a "true fact" as you say. But it isn't true or false... science doesn't use those terms. It is just a data point. Even if the study was paid for by the Green Jelly Bean Coalition for Truth, it is still just a data point. Time (and repeated experiments) will provide a better understanding of reality.

Science is slow and conservative. New ideas are not received with open arms but must prove themselves worthy.

3. You do not put any weight in "systemic explanations." You don't put much stock in the idea that a person's environment can determine their path in life. This is probably the point that surprised me the most about you.

These are perhaps the three biggest things that I have learned about you, but I have learned many little things. Every post I learn more. Not that I can predict which way you will go on a topic... I'm still trying to make sense of you! Perhaps when I can predict you (and you me), then we won't have a need for writing these things.

David:
It would figure that we don't actually agree on why we started the blog.

I'm reminded of my favorite quote from Mark Twain: "There are lies. There are damned lies. And then there are statistics." I just got back from a week-long emergency medical conference in Boston. Every lecturer starts his talk with a disclaimer, whether or not he has any financial interests or conflicts with the information he is presenting. At least in the world of medicine, all studies are funded by someone, either a pharmaceutical company, an equipment manufacturer, or possibly even the government. This does not mean the results of the study are wrong, but studies have shown that the funding source can indirectly taint the results. You may subconsciously craft the study in a way that benefits the desired outcome. Some studies are so expensive, or require so many participants to become statistically valid, that they are very difficult to repeat and verify. There are many examples in medicine where we eventually discover that something that has been dogma for years, is wrong.

Doug:
I see that the pharmaceutical science is pretty different from, say, computer science. Or general academic science. There is not very much money at stake in my areas of academia. But even still, time should expose such lies and statistics.

David:
Agreed. However, medical and pharmaceutical studies are highly regulated by the government, which drives the costs of the final product up, but also makes it very difficult to repeat a study for validation. But until something is validated, or has been out in use for awhile,  I choose to remain a bit skeptical.

Another bias is if you are promised additional funding for research if the results benefit the funding entity, like a government grant, there is great pressure to make sure the data fits the paradigm, or to change the study to match the data, so the outcome is positive. Most scientist do not fall into this category, but if everyone in a certain field believes a certain paradigm, like climate change, results that don't fit the narrative are altered to fit, or set aside with the explanation that "we're revising our theory so the data will fit". But the theory doesn't change. Climate change is a great illustration of how "science" can be manipulated to fit larger political ideologies, on both sides of the aisle.

Doug:
Yes, I know that that is what you believe, and that is not how it works. That is what I have learned about you. You easily map "climate science" onto "pharma science." But that doesn't work. Besides, if someone could show that climate science was wrong, that would be big news, and those scientists would become world famous. But, alas, we have changed the planet already in ways that have set into motion a domino effect.

David:
Not at all. You can measure real-time effects with medications, and compare the results to placebos or other medications in a controlled setting. Double-blinded studies, where neither the subject or the person providing the "medication" knows if they are receiving the drug to be studied or not, is the methodology. Climate change, on the other hand, makes predictions based on the theory, and then looks to see if the predictions come true. The world changes, but how much of an effect we have is debatable, and un-testable. In the same way, there is no way to study if changes we make will have any impact on those climate changes.

Doug:
That is not true. There are many ways to study such phenomena, like planet formation, the big bang, etc.

David:
Um, there are no other planets with human activity. And there is no way to run a global study to see what happens if you manipulate certain variables. There is a theory, and predictions. So far, all of the anticipated world-ending predictions have fallen way short of what should have happened according to the theory, or have just been wrong. That's the basis of the disparity with climate change: It can't be proven either way.

Doug:
"Proven" is another word we don't use in science. Things aren't "true" or "false." There are theories and data. Actually, I believe that most climate effects are happening at a faster rate than what was imagined.

David:
"Imagined" is certainly the correct word. Carbon dioxide levels have almost doubled since the earliest predictions developed, and yet the global temperature increased less than a percentage of what was predicted. Scientists then admitted that they didn't understand why that was, but surmised that oceans were somehow buffering the temperature increases, or possibly accumulating the excess carbon dioxide. But they are still certain that this theoretical buffering will soon run out, and we'll be right back on track. Perhaps you should mention to President Obama that nothing is "proven" in science. Maybe he'll quit saying the science is "settled", and anyone who doesn't agree with his interpretation of the facts is a "denier".

Your starting paradigm is that we are the lead domino, and no problems with the data will dissuade you.  Hey, sounds like a new blog is heating up!

Doug:
Is there a difference between being a domino and the lead domino?

David:
Certainly. The lead domino is the cause or instigating event. It is the catalyst. The other dominos topple without any control. Once the lead domino falls, physics and gravity do the rest. The climate changes. The ecosystem adjusts. We don't control it. We are not the lead domino.

Doug:
We certainly transformed the planet, in many ways. But you are right: it is out of our control.

David:
And I do get lots of personal comments from folks who find the discussions very interesting. I know plenty of people who find they lean in your direction on some topics, or towards me on others. Some have even said they think we're both right.....and both wrong. So I do think we may be serving a role in making some ideas more concrete, or phrasing ideas in a different way for some folks.

Doug:
Why don't those people say something here, or in Facebook? Perhaps we do serve a role, but that is not my goal.

David:
So, your goal is just to argue with me? Not to benefit society? Perhaps someone should comment on that.  ( Hint, hint...)

Doug:
I'm largely doing this for my own benefit. I'm a scientist trying to understand myself, and the world.

David:
It might be interesting to ask the question, when did our points of view begin to differ? Sort of a nature versus nurture argument. Oldest child versus middle child? Peer group pressures? Hobbies?

Doug:
I think we headed in different directions in late high school and in college. I think we both found little bubbles in which to safely develop. I found the Indiana Skeptics, and you found the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Two very different groups, but supportive in their own ways. Both of these groups validated deep ideas that we had, and set our frameworks in place for the rest of our lives.

David:
But what drove us to join those very different groups? I sought out FCA in college, because it was a group I belonged to in high school, along with Young Life, and other Christian groups. What led you to the Skeptics?

Doug:
Well, women, for one. But I had questions that were not being satisfactorily answered with "God did it."

David:
It seems that perhaps we were different before our time at Indiana University, although that's certainly where our paths divided. Why did we have differing "deep ideas" when we got to school?

We both grew up enjoying rocketry and water skiing and Star Trek. Often, we would read the same science fiction books we borrowed from our Uncle Jeff. We slept in the same room. We both had a very balanced high school experience, with athletics, band, and many of the same classes. We were both photographers for the school paper and yearbook. In fact, we were both the photo editor for both. I took over that job when you graduated.

Doug:
Yikes, we were nerds! And you didn't even mention "performing magic" or playing with G.I. Joes. What the hell were we thinking?

David:
Ah, yes. Remember sawing our sister in half? We had a good partnership in that magic act.

Doug:
Those were all of the external activities. But what was going on in the inside? I think I was more interested in the questions being asked, and you were more interested in the answers.

David:
Perhaps. And in your role as a computer science and robotics professor, you're now training students to ask the questions that might develop new technologies, and I'm training medical students to find solutions the  health problems that face our patients. Maybe we're two sides of the same coin?  Or maybe you're the "Calvin" to my "Hobbes".

Doug:
Nope :)