Teleological-style thinking patterns

[LostinParis]

An alarming number of my Christian friends are believing in conspiracy theories about Covid-19, vaccinations and 5G. At first I concluded that this was due to their distrust of science, however it seems there is also a psychological link between conspiracy theories and creationism. It’s called teleological thinking:

 

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/theres-a-psychological-link-between-conspiracy-theories-and-creationism-101849

I’m almost at the point of ditching my friends, it’s so frustrating and annoying listening to this conspiracy shit!

Help.

[Bhim]

I think we can safely dispense with the vaccine and 5G conspiracy theories. Regarding covid-19, it is also important not to give serious thought to un-scientific notions. And in that spirit, I have noticed that over the past three months, I have been hearing a lot about covid-19 from non-scientists and non-statisticians. It's hard to look at the CDC's plot of excess deaths and come away with the conclusion that this virus is the black death.

 

If this is a conspiracy, I think it is an accidental one of mass foolishness. It's worth asking though: why is all the information about covid-19 being disseminated by journalists instead of scientists? In the case of something as important as a global pandemic, I feel this should be an internal conversation amongst experts, not a public discussion in which each of us gets a seat at the table.

[MOHO]

It is quite disturbing to listen to Mrs. MOHO's ( okay their mine too) friends doing the group-think gig surrounding Covid, vaccines, and large band-with services. They get themselves worked into a tizzy but when I pull one aside they calm right down and begin to think. I have never been a  joiner so, even though I sometimes find myself getting sucked in just a little, I find it both interesting and scary to watch this phenomenon.

 

At least my lovely wife takes the time to do research on these conspiracies. There's some confirmation bias but at least she's researching. I hope this become a trend that influences here entire life.

 

 

[florduh]

51 minutes ago, Bhim said:

It's worth asking though: why is all the information about covid-19 being disseminated by journalists instead of scientists?

 

That's like asking why wars are reported by journalists instead of generals on the front lines. Doctors, epidemiologists and actually qualified people ARE presenting information on the virus. You just don't get their information from any official US government sources since the facts don't support ignoring the virus. Instead, legitimate news sources report the latest findings and projections.

[TABA]

33 minutes ago, MOHO said:

 

At least my lovely wife takes the time to do research on these conspiracies. There's some confirmation bias but at least she's researching. I hope this become a trend that influences here entire life.

 

 

MOHO, buddy, we're counting on you to do the influencing...

 

No pressure though, no pressure at all...

[Bhim]

4 hours ago, florduh said:

 

That's like asking why wars are reported by journalists instead of generals on the front lines. Doctors, epidemiologists and actually qualified people ARE presenting information on the virus. You just don't get their information from any official US government sources since the facts don't support ignoring the virus. Instead, legitimate news sources report the latest findings and projections.

 

That's not correct though. Generals do report on the status of wars, especially more modern ones like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As for the legitimate news sources, there's also an analog to your example of wars. There are science journalists who - presumably - understand science at a higher level than the average jouranlist, in much the same way wars are reported on by war correspondents. But there are far too many op-eds in mainstream news by people who, to my knowledge, are not science journalists.

[Bhim]

5 hours ago, florduh said:

You just don't get their information from any official US government sources since the facts don't support ignoring the virus.

Perhaps you could clarify this part? I've been getting a lot of information from Dr. Fauci, Dr. Adams, Pence, etc. to the effect that the virus is a serious public health crisis and must be taken seriously.

 

I don't know whether I agree with this (meaning I genuinely don't know). I do know however that the virus is not the equivalent of the plague, ebola, etc.

[florduh]

23 minutes ago, Bhim said:

But there are far too many op-eds in mainstream news by people who, to my knowledge, are not science journalists.

Opinion pieces are not factual news and are labeled as such. I don't know why you assume a purveyor of news can't quote facts and figures derived from experts. Everybody has an opinion, even you and I, but facts are facts regardless of who tells us. For example, Dr. Fauci and others in the field warned us, through the media, about a premature opening and of course the states who ignored that information are now experiencing a second wave of viral infections. Sadly, the expert opinions based on facts and science went unheeded as certain quarters were calling them "Fake News!!!" 

 

[florduh]

1 minute ago, Bhim said:

Perhaps you could clarify this part? I've been getting a lot of information from Dr. Fauci, Dr. Adams, Pence, etc. to the effect that the virus is a serious public health crisis and must be taken seriously.

 

I don't know whether I agree with this (meaning I genuinely don't know). I do know however that the virus is not the equivalent of the plague, ebola, etc.

The rhetoric doesn't match the actions. Refusal to wear masks and suspend gathering large crowds for political purposes, pressuring governors to reopen before it's safe is not motivated by facts or even common sense. They can now say that they recognize the severity of the crisis (you, for one, bought it) but then actually do nothing to address it. The funny thing is that the spikes and second waves arising from premature opening of the economy has resulted in a plummet of the stock market. Regarding the severity, how many would need to die for it to be a crisis? Do you have any friends living in NYC? Fun fact: Those attending Trump rallies have to sign a waiver relieving the organizers of liability for giving them the virus! 

[LostinParis]

Luckily here in Australia we often hear directly from doctors such as Norman Swan (who is also a journalist). However there are still far too many people in positions of power who don’t think analytically, but rather rely on intuition. But generally speaking, Australians seem to have more trust in our government and media than US citizens have in theirs. Conspiracy theories undermine public trust in government services and institutions. And there are few gatekeepers to fact-check information on social media.

 

What I find most fascinating are the teleological thinking patterns behind the believers in conspiracy theories. 

“Everything happens for a reason” is something I used to say and believe myself. I’m not sure exactly when and why I ceased thinking this way. It probably fell away together with my belief in a god who purposefully directs events towards an end plan.

 

Amongst my religious friends, I have realised that fact-based arguments are ineffective, and often counter-productive. One friend sees herself as the brave hero standing up to the vaccinating villains of Big Pharma.
 

So how can we encourage healthy skepticism rather than hyper-skepticism? Analytical thinking rather than relying on intuition?

[florduh]

11 minutes ago, LostinParis said:

Amongst my religious friends, I have realised that fact-based arguments are ineffective, and often counter-productive.

Also true with political agendas. Here we live with "alternative facts" and "don't believe your own eyes and ears." Our current administration has maintained a relentless attack on the free press because facts are uncomfortable for them.

[Bhim]

7 hours ago, florduh said:

Opinion pieces are not factual news and are labeled as such. I don't know why you assume a purveyor of news can't quote facts and figures derived from experts. Everybody has an opinion, even you and I, but facts are facts regardless of who tells us.

 

You haven't correctly stated my assumptions. I don't object to quotations of facts, as long as the facts are true (or at least the best approximation of truth derived by the relevant researchers). Setting aside the uncertainty of the asymptomatic infection rate, claims of transmissibility are generally accurate. Minnesota even released the code for its covid transmission model. I've looked at both the code and the comparison to actual outcomes, and the model tends to be reasonably accurate. On the other hand, claims about the infection fatality rate have been grossly exaggerated. Governor Cuomo famously said that "the virus is death." That's just not true. I might even call it a lie, except that I don't think he had malicious intent. If you contract covid-19 you almost certainly will not die. I've seen almost no disputation of this fact. Do you dispute my claim?

 

7 hours ago, florduh said:

For example, Dr. Fauci and others in the field warned us, through the media, about a premature opening and of course the states who ignored that information are now experiencing a second wave of viral infections. Sadly, the expert opinions based on facts and science went unheeded as certain quarters were calling them "Fake News!!!" 

 

This is not true. The data on infection rates is publicly available, and I can detect no relation between public policy and increased rates of infection. Florida reopened and does appear to have a second wave. Georgia reopened and does not. Wisconsin's lockdown was entirely overturned by their Supreme Court, and there is no second wave. New York had a strict lockdown and their infection rate has declined. California had and continues to have a strict lockdown and their infection rate is increasing. Minnesota has "turned the dial" and its infection rate is decreasing. Are you noticing a pattern? Because I am not. Please Google "covid infections by state" for easy access to this data and verify everything I'm telling you.

 

Now having said all that, I find it unwise to rely on the metric of infection rate. Let's set aside the large false negative and notable false positive rates of the tests, as well as the variable accuracy among tests by different manufacturers. Discerning the infection rate requires a testing of the population entire.

 

But there is a bias in the testing. Imagine a perfect scenario in which you cycle through all of a state's residents and test them. The daily infection rate would involve adding the product of each resident, and a binary multiplier (i.e. a 1 or 0) signifying whether or not he has covid-19. But that's not what we do in practice. We preferentially test people based on a variety of factors such as their willingness to be tested, their age, their risk factors, etc. Mathematically we can model that by imagining that we are testing every resident, but multiplying by an additional binary variable (essentially a Kronecker Delta function, for the mathematically initiated) indicating whether the individual was chosen for testing.

 

Obviously, this procedure will not give us the state's true infection rate. To infer that rate, we must replace the delta function with the reciprocal of the prior probability that the individual would be tested. Essentially, test results from people who are highly likely to be tested must be given a lesser weight than test results from people who are less likely to be tested. If all of your tests are performed on fat people and geriatrics with respiratory symptoms, you are a priori more likely to detect a large number of positive cases, so those cases must be assigned a lower statistical weight than the young, asymptomatic, thin person who comes in for a routine physical and is given a positive covid-19 diagnosis.

 

Determining the a priori probability function is the key, here. If I were the analyst compiling these statistics, I would likely construct a univariate function of age, using the numbers of prior tests (binned in age). I'm sure that more sophisticated techniques exist, but at least this approach would give us a good idea of the actual infection rate.

 

When you Google "covid infections by state," what you are seeing is not the statistic I described above. It's simply the raw number of covid infections per day. That's not a meaningful number. It certainly shouldn't determine any sort of public policy.

7 hours ago, florduh said:

They can now say that they recognize the severity of the crisis (you, for one, bought it) but then actually do nothing to address it.

 

You are incorrect to state that I bought anything. If you want to know what I believe or don't believe, feel free to ask. I'll tell you what I think, or if I don't know what I think I'll say so. But it would be fairly meaningless to tell me what I think. If I want that, I can read some of Paul's epistles.

 

7 hours ago, florduh said:

Regarding the severity, how many would need to die for it to be a crisis?

 

I'm glad you asked. Obviously my answer will vary based on the putative cause of death, e.g. mechanical failures, car accidents, murders, etc. In the specific case of a naturally occurring pathogen such as SARS-CoV2, I believe that that if the expected death toll is less than 1% of the total population, the government should take absolutely no action with intent to save human life, if such action even subtly infringes on personal liberties. I arrive at the 1% figure by noting that the CDC cites this as the baseline number of yearly deaths, using 2017 as a template example. You may feel differently, but such difference would be based on different value judgments on our part. I think there is little useful discussion to be had on the topic of differing values.

 

7 hours ago, florduh said:

Fun fact: Those attending Trump rallies have to sign a waiver relieving the organizers of liability for giving them the virus! 

 

Since you brought up Trump, I will observe that the recent race riots, which entailed mass gatherings of individuals without social distancing, were supported almost entirely by people who do not have an affinity for Trump. In other words: the people who are spreading the novel coronavirus are the same people who think cops are shooting black people like wild game, without bothering to justify such an assertion via rigorous research published by objective sources. It is not my preference to discuss politics in the science forum. If you want to discuss Trump, I'm happy to do so at length in a forum where empirical facts are not of principal concern.

 

(And if you want to discuss the racism topic...no.)

[midniterider]

7 hours ago, florduh said:

Also true with political agendas. Here we live with "alternative facts" and "don't believe your own eyes and ears." Our current administration has maintained a relentless attack on the free press because facts are uncomfortable for them.

 

https://gyazo.com/881a8514f90c566d4f3c216999437143

[pantheory]

On 6/12/2020 at 12:59 AM, LostinParis said:

An alarming number of my Christian friends are believing in conspiracy theories about Covid-19, vaccinations and 5G. At first I concluded that this was due to their distrust of science, however it seems there is also a psychological link between conspiracy theories and creationism. It’s called teleological thinking:

 

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/theres-a-psychological-link-between-conspiracy-theories-and-creationism-101849

I’m almost at the point of ditching my friends, it’s so frustrating and annoying listening to this conspiracy shit!

Help.

 

Never heard of teleological thinking but obviously it often flies in the face of thinking when one fully understands and believes in the scientific facts which are supported by a truck load of evidence. Science makes mistakes also but not as obviously wrong as teleological thinking.

 

I'm sure your friends have more to offer than just their religious views or stupid teleological thinking. When they start getting into conspiracy theories or religious dogma you could steer the conversation to another subject that you are both interested in. As for me, I have religious friends that know better than to discuss religion with me since all know that I am an atheist. They know that I  will mock silly or trivial conversations excepting for their jokes, so usually they get the gist not to talk to me of such things. If they want to talk religion with me after a reminder that  I'm an atheist, I would be more gentle with them by simply making a joke of it such as, "you're  barking up the wrong tree, dog." If they really are my friend they would not be offended by my joke.

 

If they were to talk about conspiracy theories to me I would make a joke of what they are saying, even though I'm sure a few of  such ideas are true, but I let them know I don't want to hear them. I wouldn't get rid of a friend unless he couldn't cope with my continuous making fun of him because of his lack of logic. Even though he believes these ideas are true, he begins to realize what not to talk  to me about it if he doesn't want me to mock him.  I never argue or explain my own point of view unless they ask my opinion and then I don't hold anything back. Afterward if they do not accept my opinion and knowledge I will not argue my point further. I would just tell them to talk about something else that  we both might be interested in such as any science, any academic subject, Covid 19, lockdown,  vaccinations, protesting and riots, drinking, women, movies, abortions, etc.

[Bhim]

11 hours ago, pantheory said:

I would just tell them to talk about something else that  we both might be interested in such as any science, any academic subject, Covid 19, lockdown,  vaccinations, protesting and riots, drinking, women, movies, abortions, etc.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be curious to know: what are your thoughts on the covid-19-related lockdowns?

[pantheory]

How goes it Bhim?  Nice to talk to you again.

 

As for Covid  19 and the lockdown, I agreed that flattening the curve via a lockdown was necessary based upon the information we had at the time. In retrospect based upon the trillions of dollars just the US has spent so far, I would have instead spent a lot of money individually isolating the high risk individuals instead of locking them down as well as everyone else. If those individuals didn't wish to comply, then their sickness or death would be on them. Most such people would have probably complied if they received a big financial motivation to do so. And we would have spent far less money and I think fewer would have died based upon this strategy.

 

As to Covid 19, I believe it will end up very similar to the flue, influenzas A and B, and the dozens of variations of it. After we have vaccines for Covid 19 I don't think it will be any more dangerous than the flu. We are already coming up with a number of anti-viral drugs that can reduce the severity of Covid 19 if one gets it, just like we have prescription enfluenza drugs such as

• Tamiflu (oseltamivir phosphate, also available as generic)
• Rapivab (peramivir)
• Relenza (zanamivir)
• Xofluza (baloxavir marboxil).

I think some counties, states and provinces were mandated to lockdown too long including the US. Lockdown was a financial disaster for all countries, states and provinces which may have caused more deaths than Covid 19, via personal financial disasters, stalling off cancer and other serious medical treatments, not wanting to go to the doctors, many dentists closed down, continuing suicides, reasons to riot to get out of lockdown, etc. I think far too many people lost their jobs unnecessarily around the world. Next time a Pandemic comes along I hope they concentrate more exclusively on the more vulnerable people via their total isolation from all others and let most other people make their own decisions.

 

[Bhim]

22 hours ago, pantheory said:

I would have instead spent a lot of money individually isolating the high risk individuals instead of locking them down as well as everyone else

 

Yes I think that's the general consensus. But I think the fact that trained scientists (ex. you and I) outside the biological sciences are coming to the same conclusion - and are ostensibly unopposed by the biologists - suggests that something is deeply wrong with the general public's scientific thinking in this regard. The lockdowns were initially motivated by incomplete science, but appear to have been perpetuated by fear. As near as I can tell, there is no reason we should not open every bar, restaurant, and hair salon in the free world, and simply ask old people and morbidly obese people to stay home. One could accuse people such as ourselves of not understanding virology, but we cannot be accused of not understanding general scientific thinking. If there is an argument for quarantining healthy people in light of the CDC count of excess deaths, I'd like to hear it.

 

I am also deeply concerned by the promulgation of the following pair of phrases: "science is real / black lives matter." I have seen these two phrases paired in numerous contexts, including lawn signs and T-shirts. It suggests a combination of science (presumably related to the covid-19 pandemic or perhaps climate change) with a non-scientific political/social agenda. What does "black lives matter" have to do with science? As you and I are no doubt aware based on the history of physics, it is entirely possible to be a world class scientist as well as a literal Nazi (ex. Johannes Stark). Science does not have a morality, it does not suggest a particular ethical course of action. I am worried that this is indicative of a more general pollution of science with political and social thought, and that it has poisoned the general public's scientific thinking at a time when scientific thinking is of paramount importance. I'm not certain that the non-scientist public is currently equipped to think critically about covid-19. I am worried that a large number of people will be driven to a state of overcautious behavior and paralyzing fear, owing to an inability to read and understand statistical analysis of data.

 

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, Bhim said:

 

Yes I think that's the general consensus. But I think the fact that trained scientists (ex. you and I) outside the biological sciences are coming to the same conclusion - and are ostensibly unopposed by the biologists - suggests that something is deeply wrong with the general public's scientific thinking in this regard. The lockdowns were initially motivated by incomplete science, but appear to have been perpetuated by fear. As near as I can tell, there is no reason we should not open every bar, restaurant, and hair salon in the free world, and simply ask old people and morbidly obese people to stay home. One could accuse people such as ourselves of not understanding virology, but we cannot be accused of not understanding general scientific thinking. If there is an argument for quarantining healthy people in light of the CDC count of excess deaths, I'd like to hear it.

 

I am also deeply concerned by the promulgation of the following pair of phrases: "science is real / black lives matter." I have seen these two phrases paired in numerous contexts, including lawn signs and T-shirts. It suggests a combination of science (presumably related to the covid-19 pandemic or perhaps climate change) with a non-scientific political/social agenda. What does "black lives matter" have to do with science? As you and I are no doubt aware based on the history of physics, it is entirely possible to be a world class scientist as well as a literal Nazi (ex. Johannes Stark). Science does not have a morality, it does not suggest a particular ethical course of action. I am worried that this is indicative of a more general pollution of science with political and social thought, and that it has poisoned the general public's scientific thinking at a time when scientific thinking is of paramount importance. I'm not certain that the non-scientist public is currently equipped to think critically about covid-19. I am worried that a large number of people will be driven to a state of overcautious behavior and paralyzing fear, owing to an inability to read and understand statistical analysis of data.

 

 

Such decisions IMO should not be solely based upon medical science. Many other sciences, humanities, and economics should be part of the equation.

 

Although I am pissed at the way it was handled as far as the lockdowns generally being too long IMO, as far as the lockdowns in general I probably would have done the same thing if I were in power, with the initial info that they had to start with, excepting for shorter lockdowns. Unfortunately there probably will be a resurgence of Covid in the northern hemisphere this coming winter. It won't be as bad however since there is a lot of heard immunity out there now. It is almost the beginning of winter now in the southern hemisphere so I expect they will get an increased share of Covid in the coming months.  Next winter in the Northern hemisphere many counties will be pushing to release a vaccine. I know of at least one vaccine of the many dozens in test around the world, which I believe is totally safe and effective for those that have taken it in trial. After vaccination they have the same amount of antibodies in their blood as people who have already had the disease.

 

Come next winter in the US Trump will still be in power at least until the first of next year. I believe win or lose he will try very hard to have a vaccine released while he is still in power. If not approved as yet he will push for a much bigger trial so that for those most vulnerable, it they want to be part of a trial they could. I also read that at least half the population will choose not to take a vaccine when it is available. This is about the same amount of people that choose not to take the flu vaccine every year. As one can imagine, religious people are more likely not to take vaccines in general according to my readings. We still don't know how long immunity lasts after having Covid. This period of time is only roughly one year for the flu. This is also how long immunity lasts after taking a flu shot, hence we take flu shots every year. Hopefully a Covid vaccine will provide immunity for a longer period of time. If antibodies against Covid remain in the blood for a longer period of time then we may not need to have a Covid shot every year like flu shots.

 

They are working on a universal flu vaccine whereby it will be effective against nearly all strains of the flu so that a different vaccination every year to cover the most prevalent flu strain may not be needed. It is also possible that a Covid shot can be combined with the flu shot for those who want it that way for convenience sake.

 

[LostinParis]

On 6/17/2020 at 3:21 AM, pantheory said:

 

Such decisions IMO should not be solely based upon medical science. Many other sciences, humanities, and economics should be part of the equation.

In Australia, it turns out that Covid-19 decisions based in science were also best for the economy. We had an early, strict and short lockdown. Our economy has taken a hit, but not as badly as was first predicted.

 

The average Australian probably has more trust in government and science than the average US citizen, and were consequently more compliant with the lockdown.

Our New Zealand neighbours undertook an even stricter lockdown and have managed to eradicate the virus. Australia aimed for suppression rather than eradication. Our borders remain closed and we are isolated from the rest of the world until a vaccine is available. Not an ideal scenario but we have only 102 deaths. So far.
 

Sweden opted for a soft lockdown, with shops, restaurants, gyms and schools remaining open. The Swedish death rate from Covid-19 is five times higher than their nordic neighbours who had more strict lockdowns. The Swedish economy is now experiencing a similar downturn as the rest of Europe. 

 

I guess time will tell which strategy is best in the long run, and hopefully we will be better prepared for the next pandemic.