The Arrogance of Ignorance
January 5th, 2008
Back from a relaxing holiday, I’ve decided to tackle a topic that I’ve been mulling over for months.
For many years, I have pondered the paradox that the people who know the least about a subject are often disproportionately confident in their mastery of it.
For example, in the mercury-causes-autism movement, many of the people who are the most disdainful of those who disagee with their received knowledge have little or no discernible education, training or experience in science, let alone biology or medicine. These people have degrees in business, art or - in the case of one self-proclaimed expert - Google.
As I was pondering this paradox, a friend sent me a copy of an old (1999) article by Kruger and Dunning:
In this paper, Kruger and Dunning, using Cornell undergraduates as subjects (OK, not exactly normal volunteers), examined how well a person’s performance in a variety of intellectual skills was reflected in their self-assessment of their own abilities. Using an exhaustive set of tests, they showed that the students’ prediction of their performance was unrelated to their actual ability.
Now, Kruger and Dunning felt that their data showed an inverse relationship between perception and ability - and that may be. Subsequent studies (e.g. Kreuger and Mueller (2002), Burson et al (2006), and Moore and Small (2007) ) suggest that the real issue is that everybody thinks that they are “above average” and have difficulty comparing their abilities to those of others. In the absence of actual face-to-face comparison, they assume that their abilities are equal to or better than most people.
Finally - a glimmer of illumination!
You see, it had always puzzled me that a person with, say, an MBA and a “Google PhD” (or, at least, a “Google MS”) would have the temerity to accuse me of arrogance when I disagreed with them on a matter that is within my “sphere of special competence”. I would have felt utterly foolish arguing with them about accerated depreciation or global marketing based on my “Wikipedia MBA”, so I was dumbfounded that they were so confident at the same time that they were so clearly wrong.
Let me get past any false modesty here: I may not be the top in my field, but I know far more about biology, physiology and genetics than the average - or even above average - person. Even if they have an MBA. That isn’t to say that somewhere among the 6.6 billion people on Earth there isn’t somebody with an MBA who knows more about biology than I do. However, I feel confident saying that there aren’t many people with no science background (apart from their MBA) that do.
So, who’s the more arrogant; the person with a deep background in biology who states that the current data doesn’t support a connection between autism and mercury or the person with no background in science (apart from Google-based “research”) who insists that there is?
How about somebody with no background in science who presumes to lecture experienced medical researchers about the “limitations” and “flaws” of their study? I have here a modest example:
[from New England Journal of Medicine, 358(1), p 93-94, 3 Jan 2008]
(paragraph breaks inserted in Ms. Bernard’s letter to enhance readability)
Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes
To the Editor: Thompson et al. (Sept. 27 issue) [1] report the results of a study investigating the neuropsychological outcomes of early exposure to thimerosal.
As a dissenting member of the panel of external consultants for this study, I object to the authors’ conclusion that there is no causal association between thimerosal and children’s brain function. The sample comprised children who were least likely to exhibit neuropsychological impairments. Specifically, children with congenital problems, those from multiple births, those of low birth weight, and those not living with their biological mother were excluded.
The sample was skewed toward higher socioeconomic status and maternal education — factors that are associated with lower rates of neurobehavioral problems and higher intervention rates and that were not measured. The sampling frame included only children enrolled from birth in the health maintenance organization (HMO) and still enrolled after 7 to 10 years, excluding children in higher-mobility families, who tend to have lower academic and behavioral function.[2] Children with neurobehavioral problems may have been less likely to remain with the HMO. Only 30% of families selected for recruitment participated, a low rate for scientific research.
Among the families selected for recruitment, 26% refused to participate. Another 28% “could not be located,” which included families that did not respond to multiple recruitment attempts (internal documentation from the study contractor, Abt Associates) — another form of refusal.
Sallie Bernard, B.A.
SafeMinds
Aspen, CO 81611
sbernard@safeminds.org[2] Rumberger RW. Student mobility and academic achievement. In: Child & adolescent development. MentalHelp.net. January 23, 2003. (Accessed December 12, 2007, at http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=2084&cn=28.)
The measured reply from the authors:
Bernard raises several points that we wish to address. First, children with low birth weight or serious congenital conditions or conditions developing in infancy that are known to be associated with an increased probability of neurodevelopmental problems were excluded from the study. It would have been difficult to distinguish the possible added influence of thimerosal exposure on neuropsychological deficits among such children. To do so, a larger study with a different design would be required.
Second, our sample was probably skewed toward higher socioeconomic status because participating families were members of HMOs in which coverage was provided by employers. In the study population, thimerosal exposure was associated with both maternal education and maternal IQ. We therefore controlled for socioeconomic factors, maternal education, and maternal IQ in the statistical analyses.
Third, our study was less likely to include highly mobile families because the participants had to have been enrolled in the same HMO during the first year of life and during the time of testing 7 to 10 years later. These criteria ensured that we had all immunization records during the first year of life, as well as access to the participants’ medical records during the time of testing. This enhanced the internal validity of our study but makes the results less generalizable to highly mobile families.
Finally, the 30% participation rate may have resulted in some unmeasured biases. Participation in the study required a substantial time commitment from mothers and their children. Although the 30% participation rate was relatively low, it was higher than we estimated when we planned the study. More discussion regarding participation and other issues can be found in the study technical reports, available on the Web site of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[1,2]
William W. Thompson, Ph.D.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Atlanta, GA 30333
wct2@cdc.govCris Price, Sc.M.
Abt Associates
Bethesda, MD 20814Frank DeStefano, M.D., M.P.H.
RTI International
Atlanta, GA 30341[1] Price C, Goodson B, Stewart G. Infant environmental exposure to thimerosal and neuropsychological outcomes at ages 7 to 10 years. Technical report. Vol. I. Bethesda, MD: Abt, 2007.
[2] Idem. Infant environmental exposure to thimerosal and neuropsychological outcomes at ages 7 to 10 years. Technical report. Vol. II. Bethesda, MD: Abt, 2007.
Ms. Bernard’s inclusion in the “panel of external consultants” was - whether she realized it or not - an attempt to forclose this sort of argument from the mercury-causes-autism advocates. Having been part of the decision-making process, Ms. Bernard’s argument that the study was flawed falls, at least in part, on her own head.
Of course, the researchers didn’t do their study in exactly the manner that Ms. Bernard would have wanted - that would have led to results that were more noise than signal. The cynical part of me wonders if that isn’t what Ms. Bernard wanted.
I don’t want to leave the impression that I am singling out Ms. Bernard as a particularly egregious example of the “arrogance of ignorance” - she is no more than average in this regard. There are people in the mercury-causes-autism movement who are far more arrogant than she. I picked her because her NEJM response is so recent.
So, what can be done to combat the “arrogance of ignorance”? The papers I listed at the beginning of this post give some suggestions. Although not universally seen, education seems to help in a number of situations. Once people learn more about a subject, they begin to develop a grasp of how much they do not know. This should feel familiar to some people reading this ‘blog - myself included: the more you learn about a subject, the more you realize that you don’t know.
[Corollary: If you think you have a complete grasp of a subject, you are probably wrong.]
However, one of the problems that we deal with - especially in autism-related subjects - is the propaganda disseminated by many of the so-called autism advocates. In addition to the vast amounts of speculative, conjectural and often incorrect information these groups put out, they also promote the idea that “mainstream” science and medicine are uninformed, biased, corrupt or even conspiring to hide “the truth”.
These accusations make it nearly impossible for people who “buy in” to ever recognize incorrect information. Since, as they are told, anyone who disagrees is either ”stuck in old, fixed dogma” or “part of the conspiracy of silence”, there is no way for the “believers” to discover their errors.
As a result, a group of parents and other supporters are convinced that they know more about biology, physiology, genetics and medicine than the people who really do know the most about those subjects. This upside-down situation is perpetuated by a small group of scientists (who should know better) and doctors (who also should know better, but usually don’t) who support both the erroneous perception of competence and the assumption that dissenting opinions are not just wrong, but immoral.
For reference, the way real scientists deal with disagreement is not by accusing each other of corruption, conspiracy or incompetence (although that sometimes happens, it is not respected and is generally ignored). The way real scientists rebut a hypotheses is by generating more data (not more press conferences). When you see a “scientist” resorting to rebuttal-by-press-conference (as was prominent in the Cold Fusion debacle), you know that you’re not seeing science.
In an interesting parallel, many of the cold fusion “believers” also claim that “the government” (in collusion with “Big Energy”, of course) is trying to “suppress” cold fusion. They also love to claim that physicists who aren’t convinced that cold fusion exists do so, not because of the general lack of data supporting cold fusion, but because they are “stuck in old, fixed dogma” or are part of the “conspiracy of silence”.
Sound familiar?
Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of - we are all ignorant in many areas.
On the other hand, ignorance is nothing to be arrogant about, either.
Prometheus
Filed under: Autism Science, Critical Thinking
January 5th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
All very interesting. It is the same in art. The worst artists always have the best self esteem in regards to their work. The best artists usually struggle from feelilng like failures in their field.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Marla,
Absolutely! It doesn’t matter what the field is, there are always people who know just enough to be dangerous…or arrogant.
Mind you, there are a lot of people who have both a good grasp of the subject and a good grasp of their own limitations.
However, it is so true that the people who have the greatest “self-esteem” about their knowledge (or ability, in the case of art) generally have the least ability.
There are exceptions, of course. Craig Ventner is a good example of someone who is both at the top of his field and supremely confident of his own abilities. But, since people like Craig Ventner are rare, the general rule that hyper-confidence signifies incompetence still holds.
Prometheus
January 6th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Absolutely!
I think the “vast amounts” here is an important point. It could be an unconscious (or very conscious) strategy that creates a fallacious argument from popularity.
That’s a nice insulating coat - much like Daniel Dennet’s comparison of a parasite to organized religion.
From Scientific American:
“Like biological parasites, memes are not necessarily dependent on the welfare of their hosts. One of the most powerful fixations, and one that may have Dennett flummoxed, is that it is sacrilegious to question your own beliefs and an insult for anyone else to try. “What a fine protective screen this virus provides,” he observes, “permitting it to shed the antibodies of skepticism effortlessly!”
From page 2 of this article.
I’m glad you posted the authors’ response to Bernard - I hadn’t read it.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:21 am
So true, so true. It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant and arrogant some people can be. And it doesn’t matter how much evidence and information you show them, they still believe they’re the authority and know better. It just baffles me.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Your posts are always so timely. Just yesterday I was telling another ASD mom that even with my background in science, I’m “no match” for the anti-vax crowd when they attack with their *research* and conspiracy theories. You have aptly defined it as *arrogance.* I have been confusing arrogance with *misguided intelligence.*
“the more you learn about a subject, the more you realize that you don’t know.”
Hard to be arrogant when you truly believe and live by this code.
January 6th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I have a Masters of Science, which means that I have a pretty good idea of how much I don’t know, and where those boundaries lie. The more one learns, the more one understands how much more there is to learn. In analogy, the world seems big when you’re a child, but children don’t even understand just how big the world actually is, or how small a part of things is included in their concept of the world.
January 6th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I think this is the source of the saying “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. A little knowledge and you have the illusion that you know more than you actually do. Unless you know enough to cross check what you know against itself you don’t know enough.
I had occasion recently to look at the glutathione study that Haley quotes from in the link. That glutathione was measured in plasma. Glutathione inside of cells is 3 orders of magnitude higher in concentration. What was the glutathione level inside of the cells in those people with autism? We don’t know because it wasn’t reported. What does glutathione level in plasma actually mean? Probably nothing. The enzymes that use glutathione (the glutathione S-transferases) are found inside cells. Something like 10% of the soluble peptides in liver cytoplasm are glutathione S-transferases that catalyze the transfer of glutathione onto and off of other molecules. Coordination to glutathione and then excretion in bile is a major detoxification pathway for large numbers of compounds both xenobiotic and of normal metabolism. Large disruptions in glutathione physiology would very likely have major symptoms far more serious and completely unrelated to mercury physiology (which has never been shown to be seriously disrupted in ASDs).
It really is impossible to keep up with current advances in multiple fields, even if you have access to all the literature and don’t do anything other than read it. There is simply too much information. It is very easy for researchers to be ignorant of related work in a similar field simply because they don’t have the time to read about it.
Sorting out what is wrong when the authors are simply making honest errors is difficult even when you both have access to the same facts and data. It is easier when the errors are gross and obvious as in the “mercury causes autism” quacks.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Nicely said, Prometheus. I have the same problem with people who start mouthing off to me about the “theory of evolution” or “Darwin’s theory of evolution.” Often, their PhD in science is also from Google–dangerous, nonaccredited university that it is–whereas mine is from an R01 institution, not to mention the postdoc. I always aim for a measured response, but inside, I’m appalled.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Prometheus, you still don’t get it. No matter what the headlines say, the study didn’t prove that there is no causal link between thimerosal and autism–or, indeed, any neurological disorder. First, the study *did* show an increased likelihood of tics (which are neurological problems) in the thimerosal group. Second–and more important–the study deliberately eliminated children with autism, as the CDC says it plans to conduct an autism-specific study in the future. Thimerosal was *not* “exonerated” of anything, and certainly not of its possible role in causing autism. When you talk about propaganda, you must include any article that called this study an exoneration of thimerosal–it’s anything but that.
January 7th, 2008 at 9:43 am
The argument is true as far as it goes and even a fairly inexperienced scientist would recognise that removing potential confounds is er perhaps the only way to conduct a methodologically sound study? - and we can all point and laugh because Ms Bernard doesn’t seem to know something so elementary.
However, one must be careful not to fall off the donkey (a la Luther) on the other side and make fallacious arguments ‘from authority’. A science background does not an infallible person make.
January 7th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Arrogance: The mercury militia responds to the NEJM article on thimerosal-containing vaccines…
Pity the investigators at the CDC studying whether thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative pilloried by the antivaccination movement as the cause of autism and everything that is evil in medicine. Three months ago, they published a high profile…
January 7th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Theresa,
You must be referring to another ‘blog - my post didn’t say anything about the conclusions of the Thompson et al study.
However, since you bring it up, the study didn’t say that there was “…no causal link between thimerosal and autism…”. What they did say was:
“The weight of the evidence in this study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins administered prenatally or during infancy and neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years.”
In addition, you are incorrect in asserting that the study “…deliberately eliminated children with autism…”. If you read the paper, you will see that they actually said:
“Since the CDC is conducting a separate case-control study of autism in relation to mercury exposure, a measure of autism was not included in the test battery.”
This is a long way from “…eliminated children with autism…”
Finally, while they did find an increased incidence of tics with increasing mercury exposure, if you read the entire paragraph, you find that:
“Among girls, the only significant findings were two associations with better test performance. Among boys, there was a beneficial association between mercury exposure and identification of letters and words on the WJ-III and a detrimental association with behavioral regulation and motor and phonic tics according to the ratings of evaluators. “
As a result, they concluded that:
“We assessed children on 42 neuropsychological outcomes and found few significant associations with exposure to mercury from vaccines and immune globulins administered prenatally or during the first 7 months of life. The associations that we detected were small, almost equally divided between positive and negative effects, and mostly sex-specific.”
Again, it helps if you read the entire paper, not just the “highlights” printed in the press and passed around by various advocacy groups.
Alyric,
Your “cautionary notes” are well advised. Just having a background in science does not make somebody a bona fide “expert”. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that somebody with little or no education, training or experience in a field is highly unlikely to know more about the subject that someone who has extensive education, training or experience.
A useful corollary to your closing sentence might be: “A lack of science background does not make a person an infallible expert on science, either.”
Prometheus
January 7th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”
That is what A. Pope wrote. “Drinking largely”, becoming widely and deeply educated about a subject, lets you see how much there is yet to know, how complex is your subject, how shocking werdnesses regress to the mean…
How much easier to have a little learning and a lot of confirmation bias, so you can play “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on the internets.” Preening, pigheaded people.
“The Arrogance of Ignorance”. Good phrase, that, Prometheus.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I think Theresa got her expertise on the Thompson article from some antivaxer newsgroup. Kind of funny that she provided a real-time example of the theme of your post.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“It’s not what we know that causes problems. It’s what we know that just ain’t so.”
– Artemus Ward
January 8th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Absolutely! I’m reminded of the accounts of Socrates’ method of showing up those with misplaced confidence in their understanding of the world: profess ignorance in order to lead them into a display of their own.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
WFJAG,
I’d always wondered the source of that saying. Thanks for the comment.
Prometheus
January 9th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
About the quote: “It’s not what we know that causes problems. It’s what we know that just ain’t so.”
The version that I remember went like this:-
“It ain’t what a man don’t know that makes him a fool. It’s what he knows that ain’t so.”
January 9th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Another version of the Artemus Ward quote:
“It’s better to be ig’nert than to know what ain’t so.”
January 10th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I have to say I very much enjoyed your recent post about the Arrogance of Ignorance. Kudos. I read it twice. You linked to a great article by Kruger.
/“People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.” (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)/
In your words, Prometheus, essentially in the research above, “they showed that the students’ prediction of their performance was unrelated to their actual ability” and “an inverse relationship between perception and ability”was shown… you go on to say that, “everybody thinks that they are “above average” and have difficulty comparing their abilities to those of others”
I think you are definitely onto something. I see this all the time, too. It really does seem that those who are most uniformed and most confident that they are without doubt right, are so often quite mistaken and pretty unable to see it. As the study you reference said, such people’s lack of actual knowledge “robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize” their own lack of knowledge.
That Bernard of safeminds is overly confident with her BA in an undisclosed field of study. And… in my opinion, you really hit the nail on the head: “How about somebody with no background in science who presumes to lecture experienced medical researchers about the “limitations” and “flaws” of their study?”
Such people often believe they are above average. “I know /far/ more about biology, physiology and genetics than the average - or even /above average/ - person.”
I also agree with you wholeheartedly that the more confident you are of your grasp, the more likely you are to be wrong. Such a mind frame is easy to spot in someone’s talking or writing.
I note that are able to see HUGE and OBVIOUS flaws in the research of so-called experts, those with so-called advanced degrees and alleged training in their “areas of expertise”. You spot obvious flaws that even a layperson should be able to see! But amazingly, that the supposed expert/researchers themselves do not see and probably can not even hope to grasp.
It is really great that you are so confident. Although I’m not sure it makes sense that you would be able to know when the researchers themselves do not understand their research and statistics, as you characterize it in your response to me, their attempt to clarify their own paper “shows a rather disappointing lack of understanding.” –about their own study. It is indeed refreshing to see that you, of all people, can so clearly see the difference in educated experts and those who just think they are experts and able to critique with confidence (the Arrogance of Ignorance). I especially appreciate your lack of budging on the important issue about one and two tailed statistical testing. Although I read the FAQ, and did not on my own see anything that resembled your characterization: “DeSoto argues, essentially, that there is nothing in the “rules” to prevent her from using a one-tailed test…” At first it seemed like her main point was that was a side issue and that she might have been right about what she thinks she said (she says that the link is significant using either a one or two tailed test.) But, why should I believe her? Also, when I read the FAQ page, to me it rather seemed she took the time and effort to post several references to “rules”, but I guess not, they were really just standard definitions of the conventions about one-tailed and two-tailed tests
http://www.uni.edu/desoto/desoto_hitlan_autism.html#mistake view first
This is probably very deceptive of her. Funny how blind people can be to their own arrogance and ignorance.
“I know /far/ more about biology, physiology and genetics than the average - or even /above average/ - person.” – Prometheus
“In fact, the analysis by D&H appears to be nothing more than /post hoc/ statistical fiddling to get the desired answer.”- Prometheus
“Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.” - Justin Kruger and David Dunning
You really hit the nail on the head— How about somebody with no background in statistics (science) lecturing on the “limitations” and “flaws” of an experienced researchers’ study?
January 10th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Connor,
Maybe someday I’ll ‘blog about the danger of making assumptions about people you’ve never met.
It’s fascinating that you seem to think that you know so much about me and my areas of expertise. Are you assuming that a biologist knows nothing about statistics?
In addition, I took the step of consulting with a Professor of Mathematics - who teaches statistics - on the statistical issues.
Prometheus
January 10th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Artemus Ward - Major General in Command of the Massachusetts Militia at the Battle of Breed’s Hill (also known as Bunker Hill). After Lord Howe decided to sail for New York, MGen. Ward expressed is objection to the Continental Congress appointing a Virginian a Lieutenant General and not offering him at least a Major General’s commission, and went home, letting all who would listen know his opinion that it would keep a New Englander to keep the Continental Army together and the Colonies didn’t have a chance of winning with that Virginian in command.
There’s a certain amount of irony as to Ward’s famous quote.
Dear Terry & DT35:
There a quite a few similar quotes from that time period (and earlier ones and later ones. I tend to quote Ward not because it’s necessarily the best phrased, but due to the irony.). During that time Franklin was far from the only excellent writer and Poor Richard’s wasn’t the only Almanac. They are just the ones mainly remembered today, although seldom read. Instead of reading Silence Dogood, we force our children to read “See Dick run” and wonder why they stop reading and fail to learn to write well.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:58 am
[...] from nonsense in medicine. Cancer and most other diseases are not something about whose therapy one can self-teach with much hope of success. However, because we all have to deal with health issues at one time or [...]
January 30th, 2008 at 8:38 am
So you’re saying that perhaps there were children with autism in the study, because the study authors didn’t choose the specific words “eliminated children with autism from the study”? I think you’re quibbling about semantics–it’s pretty clear that the study (by design) did not include children with autism; therefore, one cannot draw any conclusion about autism from the study results.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Theresa,
If you read the article - and my post - you’ll see that the study didn’t evaluate children for autism. It’s not about a specific phrase present or absent, it’s a result of looking in the “methods” section and noting that they didn’t use any tests that would diagnose autism.
I’m not quibbling about semantics. They didn’t test for autism, therefore, they could neither exclude nor include autism.
I don’t see where you can conclude that the study “…did not include children with autism…”, since they did not test for autism. Do you have some sort of “insider information” about the study subjects? If not, you’ll have to do what the rest of us do: read the paper. In the paper, they specifically say:
“…a measure of autism was not included in the test battery…”
In other words, they don’t know if any of the subjects were autistic or not. Unless you have data to the contrary, we’ll have to either believe what the authors wrote or buy in to the “theory” that they’re part of the Massive Conspiracy to Hide the Fact that Mercury Causes Autism.
Don’t just read the “talking points” from SafeMinds - read the paper.
Prometheus
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I more often read evolution/creationism blogs where I too have been amazed at the level of arrogance shown by people whose knowledge of evolution could be written on a postage stamp with a felt pen. I estimated that the time put in by a scientist beyond a typical high school level, through university, higher degree and post-doc up to starting independent research is at least as great as between a kid playing street hockey to becoming a professional ice hockey player.
Does it not occur to people who have no more than high-school science that when they engage in arguments with scientists they are likely to look just as foolish as 6-year-olds playing in a major ice-hockey tournament?
On a related note, I find that it is generally those who are best informed who are most willing to admit to ignorance on a topic.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Richard, I agree completely with what you say, and it got me thinking. I have yet to have a conversation with anyone but my close friends that actually ended with some sort of acknowledgement of their ignorance of a particular field (and even with friends it rarely occurs). I honestly try to make it known that I am woefully uninformed on most subjects when having a conversation, but, at least in my experience, I stand alone in this regard.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Richard,
How true. I, too, have noticed that people who are comfortable in their competences are able to admit - or even joke about - their ignorance in other fields.
I find it passing strange, however, that so many people with no discernible education, experience or competence in science feel completely uninhibited about proclaiming their “views” on scientific matters.
For some reason, they appear to believe that science is a matter of popular vote, and that their uninformed opinion will somehow sway reality.
Strange.
Chad,
I’ve noticed that women tend to be more ready to admit their ignorance in a field, although - again - the number of women who parrot what they’ve heard or - worse yet - read on the Internet about autism or other scientific and medical matters boggles the mind. In this respect, they are no better than men when it comes to admitting - or, perhaps, even <em>realizing</em> their ignorance of the topic.
Prometheus
February 12th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Prometheus,
I have a 7 year old son with Autism and we have tried multiple alternative treamtments in the last 4 years. Several have been within the framework of the DAN protocol and a few have been even more alternative. During this time, my son has made progress but, to be completely frank, I am not certain that he would not have made this progress regardless of the treatments. There is, however, one treatment (see below) that I feel has shown improvements beyond the normal growth trajectory that my son has been on.
The Treatment in question is FGF2. It is very expensive (the neurologist is in Mexico) and will in all likelihood cost me close to $25,000 this year. Not to mention lost wages, etc of making multiple trips to Mexico. I did not find any blogs on your website that discussed this treatment specifically so my request to you (or any other REASONABLE skeptics out there) is to turn your critical minds and medical backgrounds to this treatment option. My son has been on sublingual FGF2 proteins (derived from a bovine source) for less than a month and we are seeing better, sounder sleep, improved cognition, a higher rate of receptive language and more flexibility in expressive language. This has been corroborated by teachers, therapists and friends who do not have any knowledge regarding the FGF2 treatment.
The neurologist in Mexico, Dr. Luis Aguilar, has said that my son’s inhibitory neurons are not in balance with the excitatory neurons (the latter are far more active) and his growth factors are intended to increase the production of inhibitory neurons. That’s my lay person interpretation.
What concerns me is that I can’t find any peer-reviewed articles discussing the use of FGF2 on Autistics. Also, why isn’t Dr. Aguilar himself publishing his findings? Finally, the skeptic in me also insists that if this is really such a promising line of treatment, why aren’t the big pharma companies jumping on the bandwagon (conspiracy theories aside, their biggest motivation is the bottom line).
What are your thoughts?
Alex
February 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Alex,
I think that you have answered your own question.
For the past decade, autism therapies have been sprouting like weeds (or kudzu) - it’s gotten to the point where no one person can keep track of them all. I certainly don’t have any special knowledge about FGF2 in autism, but I think that the available facts speak loudly.
As you pointed out, Dr. Aguilar’s claims about FGF2 (fibroblast growth factor 2, also known as basic fibroblast growth factor) and autism have not been published. He has published a number of papers, so it cannot be due to a lack of writing skill or time.
In addition, the literature on FGF2 in neurology is primarily focused on its effects on neural stem cells and blood vessel formation, with a particular emphasis on the role of FGF2 in seizures. Nothing I could find would explain how it could be of help in autism.
As you also pointed out, this would be a potentially profitable and patentable treatment, so the lack of interest from the pharmaceutical companies (”big pharma”, “little pharma” and “medium pharma”) is suspicious.
I visited Dr. Aguilar’s website and was surprised to note that he calculates the average cost to be $6000 per year, which is much less than you have experienced. Invitrogen makes recombinant human FGF2 and I could get a large amount of that for $25,000. Granted, it’s not “pharmaceutical grade” and not FDA-approved, but it’s probably purer (and safer) than bovine FGF2 produced in Mexico, not to mention being an identical match for human FGF2.
Of course, none of this “proves” that FGF2 doesn’t “work” for autism. Neither has anything “proven” that it does. As with the majority of autism “therapies”, FGF2 is in the grey land of “not proven”.
I should also point out that people were reporting dramatic results from secretin in autism not too long ago (some practitioners are still using it), but a study paid for by the company making secretin didn’t find it any better than placebo.
I caution you against trying to interpret your own child’s improvement. I have fooled myself on more occasions than I care to admit. The placebo effect works even if you’re not the one receiving the treatment - as has been shown time and time again. And the more expensive and difficult a treatment is, the more likely a person is to erroneously see improvement when there is none - or attribute improvement to it when there is no relationship.
As I said earlier, I think that you have answered your own question. I look forward to hearing from anybody else who has experience or knowledge of this treatment.
Prometheus
March 27th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
[...] It really it a very helpful paper that explains many otherwise inexplicable actions and A Photon in the Darkness offers his helpful discussion of this paper: The Arrogance of Ignorance. [...]
April 8th, 2008 at 4:31 am
[...] Photon in the Darkness likewise offers a helpful discussion of this paper: The Arrogance of Ignorance [2] Holford Myths takes a closer look at some of the inadequate economics model arguments Clay [...]
April 28th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Right … so if “a measure of autism was not included in the test battery,” then the test shows NOTHING AT ALL about the relationship (existent or non-existent) between autism and thimerosal. That’s my point. The study did not prove anything at all about thimerosal and autism, yet much of the press about the article made it seem as if it did. More to the point, your inclusion of the SafeMinds critique of the study, as well as your repeated criticisms of the “mercury-causes-autism movement” seem calculated to imply that the Thompson et al study did say something about autism after all. Otherwise, why bring up Sallie Bernard? Why is her critique of the Thompson study (however flawed) relevant to the “mercury-causes-autism movement” and its theory (which is that mercury is a factor in the onset of autism in some cases, not that mercury is the sole cause of autism in every case)? It just doesn’t make sense, unless you’re trying to say that since you find fault with Ms. Bernard’s reasoning in one instance, all her ideas must be wrong.
For the record, I didn’t read the SafeMinds talking points, other than the passages from Ms. Bernard’s letter in your post.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Theresa,
I cannot be held responsible for the misunderstandings of the press. The Thompson et al study did not address autism - it neither specifically included nor excluded autistic subjects.
Ms. Bernard’s critique of the study - and the response of her organisation, “SafeMinds” - were relevant because they were claiming “flaws” in the study that were, in fact, reasonable and proper study design decisions and limitations in order to get useful information. The authors discussed those limitations in the paper and in their response to Ms. Bernard.
The relevance of the “mercury-causes-autism movement” is that Ms. Bernard (and her organisation) are clearly of the opinion that mercury causes autism (and other “neurological disorders”) - it’s even in the name of the organisation.
If mercury in vaccines (thimerosal) were a factor in autism or other neurological disorders, I would expect to see an association between receving mercury-containing vaccines and autism and/or other neurological disorders.
The Thompson et al study found no consistent association. It did find that higher exposure to mercury-containing vaccines was associated with increased incidence of tics (which was widely mentioned by mercury-causes-autism advocates) and with higher intelligence (which didn’t get mentioned as much). Given the rather “mixed” results, the authors - quite correctly - concluded that these “associations” were the result of random chance.
I apologise for implying that you had read the SafeMinds “talking points” - that was an unwarranted assumption on my part. For the record, Ms. Bernard’s letter is reproduced in its entirety in this posting. I did not “edit” her comments.
Prometheus
June 9th, 2008 at 8:54 am
[...] of autism quackery that depends on the belief that vaccines cause autism. Couple that with the arrogance of ignorance, which Jenny McCarthy exhibits in abundance and which drives her to think that attending the [...]
June 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
The Thompson et al. study sounds very interesting; I look forward to reading it.
However, I don’t read the exchange between Bernard and the authors in the same way that you seem to have done in your post; I’m much more in agreement with your May 1st comment, that she pointed out some limitations in the scope of the study, and the authors acknowledged those limitations. (Except that, contrary to what she said, they apparently did measure socioeconomic status and maternal education, and furthermore they controlled for them, which I assume means that they controlled for differences in those variables when comparing groups in their study; I am not sure how Bernard could have made this error; I assume the authors discussed it in the paper?.)
In other words, the disagreement is not about the facts of the matter (except for that one detail), but largely about value judgments. It is true that Bernard complains that Thompson et al. have come to a “conclusion that there is no causal relationship”, when what they actually concluded (according to your quotes in the comments) was that there was an absence of evidence for a causal relationship, not evidence of an absence of a causal relationship. But enough studies that find an absence of evidence would eventually pile up to evidence of absence, as with UFOs and Laetrile and the like.
So I don’t see that the material you’ve posted supports the picture you paint, of an uninformed, incompetent person making groundless criticisms of a study. Rather, it seems to me that Bernard’s criticisms were mostly factually accurate, and they identify a real area for future research, some of which is already being planned by the CDC.
On another note, I don’t know enough about the mercury/thimerosal/vaccination and autism debate to have an opinion one way or the other. But I can certainly see how someone who thinks that mercury exposure is a nonlinear contributing factor to autistic-spectrum disorders could reasonably argue that the Thompson et al. study, at least as summarized in this comment thread, is consistent with their hypothesis; it found less effect in girls (and autism is very uncommon in girls), a detrimental effect on behavioral regulation in boys (a very common symptom of autism), and improved test performance among boys on the kinds of perceptual tasks that high-functioning autistic people tend to excel at. Plus the tics, which as far as I know are neither typical of autism nor rarer than usual among autistic people. Of course, this kind of post-hoc rationalization is a lot easier than predicting such effects in advance.
I assume the effect sizes were fairly small?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Prometheus,
A well written piece with which i entirley agree but didn’t Socrates get there first?
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/#feature
Chris
June 30th, 2008 at 12:59 am
[...] (Creationist smackdown): There’s nothing stupider than a Creationist who thinks his Arrogance of Ignorance is better suited to science than actual scientists. Unfortunately for them, that is most of them. A [...]
July 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
According to my sister-in-law, the EU has stopped using thimersol and no autistic children are being born in the EU. Other pronouncements, illegal immigrants should go home and fix their own country, the Trilateral Commission finaced the US Civi War (hard to do since they were formed in 1973)and is going to take over the world, against abortion; for death penalty….and there’s even more. When I visit I feel like I wander into a bad movie; don’t get me started on the guns….
August 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Katherine, that sounds just like the stuff my aunt used to tell me in the early 1970s. Some things never change (she even had a books on the stuff, from the Trilateral Commission to laetrile, since this was before the internet). Lots of this conspiracy stuff has been floating around for decades.
February 7th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
[...] you now know enough to harangue people about the science on national TV? s so often, the phrase “The Arrogance of Ignorance” springs to mind - see also Jeni Barnett, or Jenny McCarthy in the [...]
February 11th, 2009 at 12:54 am
[...] people are often the ones with the most to say on many subjects. It’s the “arrogance of ignorance” or as it’s more officially known; the Kruger-Dunning effect. The title of the Kruger [...]
March 15th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
[...] This comment reminds me of other conspiracy theorists - the masses are in the illusion, only a few know the truth. The majority of people, according to conspiracy theorists, are Sheeple. Only they [the conspiracy theorists] are insightful enough to see the vast conspiracies going on all around us. How very arrogant. How very ignorant. How very reminiscent of that Photon in the Darkness post. [...]
April 8th, 2009 at 10:59 am
[...] the problem is Mr. Carrey and Ms. McCarthy, who are both so full of the arrogance of ignorance that they think they understand the science and medicine of autism and vaccines after studying at [...]
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
[...] In other words, to J.B., it’s all about “elitism.” He honestly seems to believe that the reason the scientific community doesn’t accept his wild beliefs that vaccines cause autism is because of elitism and groupthink, not because the scientific evidence doesn’t support that belief. Unlike the case for scientists, it never occurs to him that he might be wrong or that the reason he is viewed with such disdain among scientists is because, well, he is wrong. But not just wrong, spectacularly and arrogantly wrong about the science. As both Steve and I have pointed out, it is the arrogance of ignorance. [...]
April 25th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Prometheus,
I have enjoyed your comments on Respectful Insolence and elsewhere on ScienceBlogs. I have seen this post referenced numerous times and finally took the time to check it out. I very much agree with the adage that the more you learn about a subject, the more you realize how little you truly know. I experienced this phenomenon acutely as I immersed myself in a foreign language for a few years.
I hope that you don’t mind that I have linked to this post from my personal blog. Thanks.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:01 am
[...] ignoring those that do not. Like Jenny McCarthy (more on her later), Somers also suffers from the arrogance of ignorance, in which she thinks her Google University and self-taught knowledge trump the understanding of [...]
June 7th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
[...] ignoring those that do not. Like Jenny McCarthy (more on her later), Somers also suffers from the arrogance of ignorance, in which she thinks her Google University and self-taught knowledge trump the understanding of [...]
June 15th, 2009 at 4:02 am
[...] from my perspective the sine qua non of crank is a certain arrogance. Among medical cranks in particular, this arrogance manifests itself in the failure to acknowledge [...]
July 20th, 2009 at 6:30 am
[...] ignoring those that do not. Like Jenny McCarthy (more on her later), Somers also suffers from the arrogance of ignorance, in which she thinks her Google University and self-taught knowledge trump the understanding of [...]
October 19th, 2009 at 12:03 am
[...] interjected to ask whether Maher was talking about the swine flu vaccine Maher continued with the arrogance of ignorance: I would never get a swine flu vaccine or any [...]
October 26th, 2009 at 12:04 am
[...] incredibly hard at this point not to go beyond Mark Crislip-grade sarcastic at the arrogance of ignorance on display. Here we have a woman who is apparently taking cortisol as part of her [...]
November 9th, 2009 at 4:02 am
[...] that what distinguishes believers in such nonsense seems to be, as Prometheus so aptly put it, the arrogance of ignorance. Even so, there seems to be more than that going on, and leave it to, of all things, an article in [...]
February 1st, 2010 at 3:46 am
“arrogance of ignorance” - love the combination of words - that is how I bumped into this thread. (thanks, G. - Google, that is)
On the subject of autism: how would a non-expert get a feel for what is the truth? I suppose using one’s basic knowledge, reading other’s opinions and then making up one’s mind. Trying to understand the technical discussions directly is bound to be difficult for the layman - specialists tend to be .. specialists. And sometimes miss the bigger picture.
In this particular case, the soundest analysis from a credible researcher that I found was Kennedy’s article (google “autism Kennedy”).
I think, therefore I am right - I think.
February 1st, 2010 at 2:52 pm
NYC Andre asks:
and then comments:
Unfortunately, the only way for a “non-expert” (I would have said “person not familiar with the field”, since you don’t need to be an “expert” to tell when someone is playing fast and loose with the facts, if you understand the field) to know what the “truth” is would be to see what the majority of the “experts” in the field are saying.
This is not to say that the “iconoclastic maverick” is always wrong, but history tells us that most of them are. Unless you want to spend the time and effort to become truly educated in a field (medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, economics, history, etc.), you either have to trust that majority of the “experts” are correct or take a chance on the minority (the “iconoclastic mavericks”) being right. The odds, historically, favor the majority.
Of course, it is true that most of the major break-throughs in science have been made by people who didn’t accept the “majority opinion”. The difference between these true “mavericks” and the “faux mavericks” is data. The real mavericks - Einstein, Galileo, etc. - had data to show that they were right. Most of the “iconoclastic mavericks” in autism either have poor data (e.g. Dr. Wakefield) or no data at all.
On the other hand, it should be pretty obvious that a non-expert (in fact, someone who has no education or experience in the field) like Kennedy is not a good or reliable source of information. If you want an analysis of politics or law, Kennedy would be a good source - on autism and toxicology, not so much.
The common mistake I see “non-experts” making is to “trust” someone because they are charismatic or because they can tell a good story or - most often - because they agree with what the person is telling them. The “truth” - in science, at least - is rarely so neat and tidy as Mr. Kennedy’s narratives. Mr. Kennedy is not a “researcher” in autism any more than Mr. Carrey or Ms. McCarthy. They are all people who have developed persuasive stories about what they think causes autism.
In Mr. Kennedy’s case, the data from several studies shows that his narrative is incorrect. In the case of Mr. Carrey and Ms. McCarthy, their (current) narrative isn’t coherent enough to allow testing. However, all of them have groups of people who “believe” what these non-experts are saying, largely because it resonates with their inherent mistrust of “government”, doctors or simply authority.
Think about the logic here - does it make sense for a non-expert to “trust” another non-expert’s opinion about a topic just because they agree with it? Talk about the blind leading the blind!
Again, while it is always possible that a minority of experts (or even just one) in a field may be “right” while the majority is “wrong”, it is incredibly rare for a “non-expert” (e.g. Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Carrey, Ms. McCarthy) to be “right” and the majority of experts “wrong”.
So, as a general rule, don’t trust non-experts when they disagree with the experts.
Prometheus
March 10th, 2010 at 6:12 am
[...] The Arrogance of Ignorance 10 03 2010 I can’t pretend to be an expert on this topic – especially not considering the subject material. So, I’m going to direct you to a very thought-provoking article by Prometheus over at A Photon In the Darkness, titled The Arrogance of Ignorance. [...]
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:04 am
[...] bit of background; with a nod to Photon in the Darkness and Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, along with Mal Adapted: Dunning and Kruger published a study [...]
May 31st, 2010 at 8:02 am
[...] is wrong. But not just wrong, spectacularly and arrogantly wrong about the science. It is the the pure arrogance of ignorance, born of [...]