Left as an Exercise

The proofs of existence and completeness are left as an exercise to the reader.

If you’re familiar with pretty much any postsecondary mathematics or physics, or any real postsecondary philosophy (sorry, metaphysicists and epistemologists), you’ve already got the pun. If you haven’t, don’t worry; instead, learn, as Feynman did, the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

This is the blog of Brian Dupuis, just a random prospective grad student with interests in science and communication. I had intended the blog to be primarily about the philosophy of science, skepticism and denialism, and environmental reflections (particularly on climate change), with a side-focus of serving as a travelogue of sorts if I happen to go on an interesting trek (such as my planned bike-to-the-ocean goal in a few years). However, it got set up just in time for my grandmother’s 80th birthday celebration, which meant the travelogue is the primary focus at the moment.

For what it’s worth, I hold a B.Sc. in physics, and by all accounts am a pretty terrible physicist. I’m currently working as a research assistant in a cognitive science lab — that is, the interdisciplinary field interested in questions of the mind as an information processor. Although I’ve got a few papers published (or under review) on the use of artificial neural networks to model cognitive phenomena, most of my work involves embodied cognitive science, which refers to the link between the physical agent and the concept of mind, and synthetic modelling, which means that I invent my models before I collect data, not afterwards. Practically speaking, this means I build LEGO robots for a living. It’s a lot of fun, and I find it interesting like you wouldn’t believe, but it isn’t my fullest passion.

For the past two years, I’ve been increasingly interested in climate change denial. It strikes home on all three of my major fronts: the psychology that characterizes the movement (cognitive biases such as ideology are one of the areas I focused on in psychology), the physical science basis that most of the arguments attempt to tackle (although I am not a climatologist, I understand enough physics to spot the more egregious errors), and the climaticide cuts straight at the core of sustainability (as an environmentalist and one interested in sustainable energy and economic principles, this should be a no-brainer).  I wanted to contribute something to this discussion, but what I had to offer is limited:

• General debunking and studies on denial? These are covered very, very well by folk like Mike Kaulbars and the Brothers Hoofnagle (and rightfully mocked by others, such as the hero of my sarcasm, Frank Bi). Rather than cut in on their territory, I’ve been contributing to these as best I can.
• Specifically addressing individual climate denial arguments? I’m not a climate scientist, and as a psychologist I’m well aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect, so I leave this field to those such as Coby Beck, Tamino, and the folk at RealClimate.
• Addressing energy and economic angles, at both the theoretical and the applied level? I’ll never live up to the standards set by Joe Romm, The Oil Drum, Michael Tobis, Adam Siegal, or Lou Grinzo.

On the flipside, all of these assume a basic degree of scientific literacy. Even blogs that are, themselves, about communication don’t seem to help much on this front (such as Chris Mooney — ironically, although he and Sheril run an excellent blog and understand the nuances of this field far better than I do, when The Intersection discusses science literacy, it usually bemoans the state of understanding instead of actually helping improve it). This gives me something to target.

One thing I noticed after several years of science education - especially when I’m asked to teach - is that the current methods suck, especially for the non-research-scientists amongst us (i.e. most of the population). Sure, there are applied science lines, but these usually amount to little more than memorization of basic facts. Some of these are important, as without an understanding of what has been learned, one can’t appreciate science at all (case in point: any proponent of the argument from ignorance). However, without a broader understanding of what science is, such facts become nothing more than assertions without any framework to explain why they matter.

By analogy, it’s like giving someone a bag of gasoline and saying “this matters for an engine,” and then asking them to vote on issues relating to alternative fuels. Without the experience of driving, or even an understanding of what driving really is and why fuel’s important, how can they make an informed decision?

When you combine this with the discrepancy in communication skill between those of us actually doing science and those who would spin science for political ends, and you add in the science-related issues plaguing our society — climaticide and peak energy being those of particular interest here, as I see them having the greatest impact with the smallest window of opportunity* — and you have a Very Bad Situation.

I hope to contribute, in my own little way, to understanding what science is and why it works the way it does. This can’t defuse the situation, but it might help in paving the way for those more experienced than me to leave their mark on readers that previously may have dismissed them out of hand.