1. Review

2. What claims can science test?

3. What is scientific evidence?

• confirmation vs. falsification
• weak severity requirement

• Truth in politics is important
• What do we mean by “truth”?
  • what types of claims?
  • how do we know claims are true?

claim:

(For our purposes) a statement about what is true or right.

• If you can add “is true” to the end or “it is true that” to the beginning of the statement without changing the meaning, it is a claim.

Don’t overthink this definition. It is as simple as it seems.

basis:

(For our purposes) the basis for a claim is the reason we should accept the truth or validity of that claim. It includes

• the evidence that is used to “prove” the claim is true

• and the warrant: assumptions required for the evidence to be valid “proof”

colloquially, we refer to both parts as “evidence”

scientific truth assumes:

1. there is an objective reality (noumena) outside of our perceptions
2. we all experience the same objective reality with others
3. this reality operates under consistent rules
4. we can only learn about this objective reality through our sense experiences (phenomena) as filtered through our minds.

• All other assumptions, concepts, claims are open to challenge.

Science is distinct as a form of thought in that:

(1) Only certain claims can be investigated

(2) Has special rules for using evidence and making assumptions to evaluate claims

Think, then write down…

• genre, artist, or song

In groups, discuss your beliefs about the best music.

Discuss: how would you prove who is right… scientifically?

Normative claims always reach beyond empirical experience.

• thus, we cannot use our sense experiences (phenomena) to learn about them.

Only empirical claims can be judged using scientific evidence.

What are key attributes of “scientific evidence”?

(Respond with only a word or two)

“It is a vast domestic terror movement. With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people.” - Steven Miller, White House Depute Chief of Staff

• Center for Strategic and International Studies found that between 2017 and 2022: “Violent far-right extremist have been responsible for 94 of the 108 terrorism fatalities (87 percent) in the United States in the past five years. This included 2022, when 18 of the 19 fatalities occurred during far-right terrorist attacks.”

• Cato Institute found that since 1975, of murders in terrorist attacks (excluding 9/11), 63 percent committed by right-wing, 10 percent by left-wing

• Is this evidence persuasive? Why or why not?

“Storming of US Capitol on January 6, 2021 was justified.”

Reasons:

\(Claim:\) “Presidential Election in Georgia was fraudulently stolen from Donald Trump”. “counting of [absentee] ballots [in Fulton county - Atlanta] took place in secret after Republican Party observers were dismissed because they were advised that the tabulation center was shutting down for the night.”

\(Claim:\) Presidential Election in Georgia was fraudulently stolen from Donald Trump

1. If the claim were true, then \(\xrightarrow{implies}\) absentee ballots from precincts in Fulton County should be pro-Biden more than absentee ballots from neighboring voting precincts just across the county line in other counties (where tabulation did not allegedly take place is secret)

(Board)

\(Claim:\) Presidential Election in Georgia was fraudulently stolen from Donald Trump

1. If the claim were true, then \(\xrightarrow{implies}\) absentee ballots from precincts in Fulton County should be pro-Biden more than absentee ballots from neighboring voting precincts just across the county line in other counties (where tabulation did not allegedly take place is secret)

2. Researcher found absentee ballots from Fulton county precincts were more pro-Biden than neighboring counties: see here

3. Therefore, concludes: “Fraud in Georgia Election”

Is this evidence persuasive? Why or why not?

Imagine two groups of cities: Some passed restrictions on handgun purchasing and ownership; some did not. Then we counted number of cities where crime increased or decreased

Did gun control increase or decrease crime?

We evaluate/interpret evidence in a way that aligns with our existing views…

• we look for evidence that supports our beliefs (b/c it feels good), discount/explain away evidence that does not.
• how can we avoid this limitation?

confirmation

If we have an empirical claim, \(C_1\) (\(C\) for claim)

and, if \(C_1\) (claim) were true, then it implies we should make certain empirical observations \(O_1\)

Confirmation says that

1. \(C_1 \xrightarrow{implies}\) we see \(O_1\)

2. If we see \(O_1\)

3. Then, \(C_1\) is true (or, more “likely” to be true)

\(C_1:\) Presidential Election in Georgia was fraudulently stolen from Donald Trump

1. If \(C_1\) were true, then \(\xrightarrow{implies}\) \(O_1:\) absentee ballots from precincts in Fulton County should be pro-Biden more than absentee ballots from neighboring voting precincts just across the county line in other counties (where tabulation did not allegedly take place is secret)

2. \(O_1:\) Researcher finds absentee ballots from Fulton county precincts were more pro-Biden than neighboring counties.

3. Therefore, concludes: “Fraud in Georgia Election”, \(C_1\) is true

Many reject confirmation: because many different, incompatible claims are consistent with the same observed evidence. We are prone to confirmation bias.

1. \((C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_k) \xrightarrow{imply}\) we see \(O_1\)

2. If we see \(O_1\)

3. Then, \(C_1\) is not proven

• Because we would observe \(O_1\) if, e.g. \(C_2\) were true and \(C_1\) false.

\(C_1:\) Presidential Election in Georgia was fraudulently stolen from Donald Trump

Confirmation?

1. \(C_1 \xrightarrow{implies}\) absentee ballots from precincts in Fulton County should be pro-Biden more than absentee ballots from neighboring voting precincts just across the county line in other counties

2. Researcher finds absentee ballots from Fulton county precincts were more pro-Biden than neighboring counties.

3. Therefore, “Fraud in Georgia Election”

• \(C_1:\) Presidential Election in Georgia was fraudulently stolen from Donald Trump
• \(C_2:\) People select residence based on partisanship
• \(C_3:\) People select residence based on racial composition of schools

1. \((C_1, C_2, C_3) \xrightarrow{imply}\): Absentee ballots in Fulton County more Pro-Biden than neighboring counties

2. Researcher finds absentee ballots from Fulton county precincts were more pro-Biden than neighboring counties.

3. Therefore, \(C_1, C_2, or \ C_3\) could be true

The difference

Confirmation looks to see: is there evidence that the claim is right

Falsification looks to see: is there evidence that the claim is wrong

• we can fail to find evidence that would rule out the claim
• it never says “claim is correct”, it says “we haven’t rejected this, yet”

Logic of falsification: what is implication \(O_1\) that we should not see if claim is true?

1. \(C_1 \xrightarrow{implies}\) we do not see \(O_1\)
2. If we see \(O_1\)
3. Then, reject \(C_1\)

1. \(C_1\) all swans are white \(\xrightarrow{implies}\) we do not see black swans (\(O_1\))
2. If we see \(O_1\) (a black swan)
3. Then, reject \(C_1\)

• Is it really so easy?

It is hard to use falsification to disprove a claim in one test:

• the claim could be wrong
• the evidence could be flawed
• the assumptions for the evidence could be wrong

• but it points us to good rules for scientific evidence

weak severity requirement:

“one does not have evidence for a claim if nothing has been done to rule out the ways the claim may be false.”

“If data x agree with a claim C, but the method is … guaranteed to find such agreement, and had little or no capability of finding flaws with C even if they exist, they we have bad evidence, no test”

(Mayo 2018)

If evidence fails to meet weak severity requirement, it is not scientific (sniff test)

Severity requirement comes from assumptions for scientific truth:

1. there is an objective reality (noumena) outside of our perceptions \(\to\) must give reality opportunity to “push back” against our claim
2. we all experience the same objective reality with others \(\to\) others need to be able to replicate
3. this reality operates under consistent rules
4. we can only learn about this objective reality through our sense experiences (phenomena) as filtered through our minds. \(\to\) due to confirmation bias, flawed perception, must actively seek out where we may be wrong

Does evidence meet weak severity requirement?

Does evidence meet weak severity requirement?

Studies Show That You Should Come Into This Room Right Over Here, And That You Should Come Alone

Recent studies suggest that it’s very important that you come into this room right over here just now. Studies also suggest that it’s equally important you do not waste time asking questions … but just step this way through the door very quickly and by yourself, immediately.

The studies were conducted, and the evidence is conclusive: this room just over here is where you should go next, without anyone coming with you. Scientists did them, the studies. Which ones? Yes.

The studies are all finished now, and you don’t need to see them. The studies suggested that it’s not important you see the studies at all, but it is important that you hurry along, quickly now, because time is of the essence. The studies say now is the best time for you to be alone in that room.

Claim: “US tariffs Worked, with little downside”

“scientific evidence”:

• does not mean the evidence is without flaw; does not mean that the claim is true
• refers to procedures and assumptions involved in generating evidence
• evidence seriously investigates whether claim itself or the assumptions underpinning the evidence are wrong

“unscientific evidence”:

• bad evidence does not mean claim is false.

Pursuit of scientific truth:

• limits us to empirical claims
• points us to pursue falsification rather than confirmation
• scientific evidence judged by severity requirement

Next time:

How to use weak severity requirement. How scientific evidence is relevant to power.