There is a famous problem in computer science (hang in there with me) called the Monty Hall Problem:
Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, “Do you want to pick door No. 2?” Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
You should switch your choice. Disagree? You are wrong! Why? Well let Wikipedia explain!
This is a really unintuitive one, but one that clever mathematicians solved a long, long time ago. But a lot of people still disagree with experts in the fields. Why is this? We all want to think we are smart, but are we all smart in all domains of thinking and knowledge?
I have been reading Jeff Atwoods series of articles on the subject for some time. His blog is always an interesting read, but his recent article just dovetailed with a book I just finished reading, Idiot American: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free. Mr. Atwood points to an article by Marilyn vos Savant in which she points out the answer to the “Monty Hall” problem above. Her correct answer is is blasted by many of her readers. Its funny she is right despite the opinions of many average Americans, and even many “learned” Americans.
In “Idiot America”, we learn about the tendency in contemporary America to give any given argument equal standing, no matter how ridiculous. For example, the politically charged issues of evolution and global climate change are both painted by some in American as being “controversial”, yet they aren’t, at all, in the circles of science. There is no controversy about evolution. It is considered a scientific fact by biologists, paleontologists, and others. Global climate change has become one one of the most researched topics of the last 50 years. It is clear to specialists in the field what is happening. At a recent convention of climatologists, the debate was not about global climate change, but about how to convince the public it was real.
Television personalities pull some 3rd rate weatherman out of East Kansas to debate a world-renowned Climatologist and both sides are given equal billing on Fox News. It doesn’t matter that “East Kansas” is probably more concerned with local politics than science, and she/he hasn’t been published in a peer-review journal. Never mind that the word-renowned scientist has been published, and thereby has had their credibility, skills, etc, put up for review by the peers (and passed).
This is the way our popular media now works. Never mind the liberal or conservative slant. Of course many of these talking heads paint all of science as liberal, and thereby political and wrong. When the truth slant gets out of whack, we are all screwed. When we quit giving respect to those in our society who strive to have, and gain the most education and accomplishment, we are in a bad place. When we start giving more credibility to Rush Limbaugh than various, proven scientists, then we are more about ego and personal opinion than truth.
