New APPS

Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science. Mostly Philosophy.

recent posts

about

    Unhealthy Skepticism: Foregone Conclusions and Bernie Sanders

    By Roberta Millstein

    Philosophers, and many thoughtful people more generally, pride themselves on having a healthy skepticism toward claims made by the media, by politicians, by scientists – by pretty much anyone. And rightly so. Many issues are complex and have not just two sides, but multiple sides. One ought not accept proffered claims without examining all of the evidence and without thinking about whether the evidence supports the claims being made. But are there times when a healthy skepticism becomes unhealthy?

    In my field, philosophy of science, we often have meta-discussions about the extent to which we should accept scientific findings or question them. But even the most naturalistic philosopher of science thinks that we ought to be skeptical of scientific findings at least some of the time and under some circumstances.

    In politics, some claim that we are starting to see a surge from U.S. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. But some are skeptical. Some think that Sanders doesn't actually have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination or the U.S. Presidency. Should we be skeptical, too – would that be a healthy skepticism?

    I don't think it is. I don't think we should have the same skepticism toward towards claims about future political outcomes as we have towards scientific claims. The reason is simple: in evaluating scientific claims, we are evaluating existing evidence. As new evidence comes in, we might change our evaluation, but our beliefs, whether in favor or against a given claim, are not affecting the evidence or the truth of the claim itself.

    But when evaluating claims about future political events, the situation is different. To see this, let's suppose that Jane Voter likes Sanders's platform, agrees with his values and proposals, but, being of skeptical bent, Jane decides that Sanders is too much of a long shot and doesn't really have a chance. This belief leads her not to support Sanders's campaign; it also leads her to suggest to her friends and and family that it would be a waste of time to do so.

    The more Janes there are in the world, the more they can convince their friends and family, the more their beliefs become a foregone conclusion. That is, unlike like beliefs about scientific claims, beliefs about political outcomes actually change the outcomes. The skepticism becomes unhealthy.

    We should act to bring about the outcomes that we find desirable, not sabotage those outcomes while brandishing the banner of skepticism.

    Posted in , , ,

    10 responses to “Unhealthy Skepticism: Foregone Conclusions and Bernie Sanders”

    1. Dani Avatar
      Dani

      You are right to say that skepticism about future political outcomes have a self-fulfilling prophecy quality to them. However, the Serenity Prayer comes to mind. There are things that Jane Voter cannot change, and this is the overall voting fundamentals. Does the information you have about the general attitude of voters make it possible that a candidate could win? There is just a point where the minute or non-existent chance of an outcome makes still believing in it irrational or even dangerous. I am not saying that this is necessarily the case with Sanders right now, but e.g. voting for Nader in 2000 (and believing he could win) was definitely such a case.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Nick Avatar
      Nick

      Excellent point. Though I would note that the phenomenon you’ve identified actually occurs in the social sciences as well, since the results of that inquiry can be influenced by what people think the results will be. Basically, it seems like any question about the intentional thought/behavior of agents will have this feature, regardless of whether it is posed by a scientist.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Roberta L. Millstein Avatar
      Roberta L. Millstein

      Yeah, the Nader case is a tough one, but as you suggest, it’s not fully analogous. There is little “danger” to supporting Sanders at this point. Were Clinton to get the Democratic nomination and Sanders to declare as a third party candidate, then I might be singing a different tune. Here, though, I do think there are things that Jane Voter can change and change for the better. The race is still in its early stages and there are a lot of unknowns. I now also regret not mentioning the role of the media in all this. They too often engage in these self-fulfilling prophesies, and I think their effect is significant. So, Jane should pressure her local media to cover Sanders and not to issue self-fulfilling prophesies (about him or anyone else) so early in the game.

      Like

      Reply
    4. Roberta L. Millstein Avatar
      Roberta L. Millstein

      That’s interesting — can you give me a specific example? I haven’t really thought about this in the context of social science.

      Like

      Reply
    5. Dani Avatar
      Dani

      The “danger” is well documented in the The West Wing Episode S04E04: The stronger Sanders gets, the more Clinton will feel obliged to lay out her position on controversial topics that he raises. This could either alienate leftist or centrist voters and endanger her win in the general.

      Like

      Reply
    6. Roberta L. Millstein Avatar
      Roberta L. Millstein

      But that assumes that:

      Sanders doesn’t have a chance (which is the point at issue), wherein his chances are affected by pronouncements that he doesn’t have a chance. I think it’s too early in the race to predict chances, but his popularity is clearly growing. The Internet makes it easier for lesser known candidates to become well known; we saw that with Obama.
      Moving to the left would hurt Clinton’s chances – this is not at all obvious to me. The Republicans don’t really have a credible candidate yet. Polls tend to show people in favor of many leftist policies (the policies themselves, not always the people advocating them).
      Clinton might move more to the center – She’s already there. She moves any closer to the center and she might as well be a Republican, in which case her loss would not be much of a loss.

      Like

      Reply
    7. Undergrad Avatar
      Undergrad

      Roberta,
      I think the effects of such predictions about future events are far more pronounced in the political sphere for other reasons; although researcher bias may contaminate results to a degree, scientists nonetheless receive unexpected results as well as attempt to actively counteract bias through their methodology. AFAIK, no such counter measures are in place in politics. Further, a widespread belief that a candidate can win seems to me a strong, even necessary condition for that candidate’s actually winning.
      In the social sciences, only a lone researcher need recognize the promise of a particular interpretation or enterprise for it to get off the ground, and well-performed scientific research should be able to convince even the most ardent opponent of the correctness of that interpretation (in theory).

      Like

      Reply
    8. David Wallace Avatar
      David Wallace

      Three quick thoughts:
      1) As I understand the political science, this is not early in the race. The race started about ten minutes after Mitt Romney’s concession speech; early steps in it probably got going about ten minutes after John McCain’s. The official point of declaring a candidate and winning primaries happens at a very late stage in the race, well after a long period of seeking support from party actors in which Clinton has been overwhelmingly successful.
      2) Again as I understand the political science, Clinton can move left if she likes; she’d have to be much further out of the mainstream than Sanders is likely to move her before it makes a difference to an election that’s very driven by economic fundamentals. (And it gives her cover to say relatively liberal things while still being to the right of Sanders.) I assume that’s the – time-honoured – reason why Sanders is running, actually: to lock in a few commitments from the Clinton campaign. So I don’t think Sanders supporters need to worry too much about backing him.
      3) “She moves any closer to the center and she might as well be a Republican, in which case her loss would not be much of a loss” – really? A Republican president probably means unified GOP control, which means massive regressive tax and welfare cuts; it probably means overturning of Obama’s executive orders on environmental protection and on backdoor immigration reform; given that by 2020 Steven Breyer will be 82, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy will be 85, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 87, it’s likely to make a change to the Supreme Court (if Clinton had got in in 2008, we’d most probably still have got Obergefell v. Hodges; if McCain had got in in 2008, we’d most probably not have got it); it probably chokes off Cuba détente; it makes war with Iran quite a lot more likely (Clinton is a hawk by Democrat standards, but compare her support for the Iran deal with the rhetoric of pretty much everyone in the GOP). I’m actually okay with most of Clinton’s policy platform, but even for people much further to the left than she is, I can’t understand indifference between Clinton and a Republican.
      I suppose, put it this way: if you’d said “she moves any closer to the center and she would have the same politics as a Republican moderate”, then I’d agree. But (i) there are no Republican moderates any more, and the GOP nominee will run on a very conservative platform; (ii) the nature of the party system means that it’s much, much better to have a moderate of your own party in power than a moderate of the other party, given all the implications for appointments and the like that follow.
      Or, put it another way: I am very sure that the Republicans are not indifferent between Clinton and a Republican!

      Like

      Reply
    9. Roberta L. Millstein Avatar
      Roberta L. Millstein

      Yes, and it might be even worse than you describe. In the political sphere, it’s not just results of a study that are at stake, but the results of the election itself. (Perhaps a survey of likely voters would be more analogous to studies in the social sciences than the outcome of an election).
      “Further, a widespread belief that a candidate can win seems to me a strong, even necessary condition for that candidate’s actually winning.” <– agreed.

      Like

      Reply
    10. Roberta L. Millstein Avatar
      Roberta L. Millstein

      Well, we can debate what is early and what is not. I think at this point eight years ago Obama was no more well known than Sanders is, and perhaps even less well known. So, while you’re right that Clinton has been running since Romney’s concession (and even earlier than that, in some sense), I do not think that it is so “late” that the election has already been decided.
      I think we are more or less agreed on this point. But I do think that whereas Sanders originally may have joined the race just to move Clinton to the left, after seeing his success in drawing crowds and in getting grass-roots donations from individuals, he is now running in earnest.
      You’re right, I’ve overstated things, and not in a responsible way. My apologies. I do think it matters whether we get a Republican or a Democrat as president for the reasons that you state. Yes, “she moves any closer to the center and she would have the same politics as a Republican moderate” was closer to what I intended. I think there is a moderate Republican or two running but they don’t have much of a chance and would likely move right anyway, as you suggest.

      Like

      Reply

    Leave a comment