Does reality depend on whom you ask? Or perhaps everyone is free to choose his or her own truth, like a personalized layout of Google News. In earlier times received wisdom was treated with special reverence. Now, many hold up “science” as indisputable truth. If we are to, at least at times, defer to “authority,” where does that designation come from? And when authorities disagree, then what?
A seemingly minor kerfuffle about sporting equipment has expanded into a meditation on objective truth and how useful science and “experts” can really be in settling an issue. And even if you don’t care at all about football, you probably care a lot about how much credence society and policy makers should give to scientists when they talk about topics like climate change or genetically modified crops. Now, we are are living in a world where the truth means one thing in Boston, and another in Seattle – presumably switching somewhere over Kansas. Or maybe the fabric or reality shifts between the ivory tower and the kitchen table.
Experts vs. Everyone Else
The Pew Research Center finds that:
“Despite broadly similar views about the overall place of science in America, citizens and scientists often see science-related issues through different sets of eyes. There are large differences in their views across a host of issues.”
Some of the biggest gaps between the scientists and the general public were human responsibility for climate change (87%-50%) and the safety of GMO food (88%-37%). Is this merely a reflection of a sorry state of science education in this country? A separate survey by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics found that 80% of Americans wanted mandatory labels on food containing “DNA”:
“The results indicate that most Americans do not understand the difference between DNA and a genetically modified food. The former is genetic material essential to life as we know it. The latter is an edible organism, the genetic material of which has been altered for some purpose. One is a building block, the other is the result of a process that alters those building blocks to some end. Given that a label warning of a food’s DNA content would be, for all intents and purposes, as meaningless as a label warning of, say, its water content, the survey results reflect an unsettling degree of scientific ignorance in the American population.”
Thus, scientists usually side with former US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, when he said that “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
#Deflategate (or #Ballgahzi)
The fortnight that separates the NFL conference championship games from the Super Bowl are customarily a dull intermezzo between two over-hyped Sundays. To pass the time, we usually resort to exercising our amateur prognostication skills regarding the final score or the color of Gatorade that will be showered upon the victorious coach. This year, however, has gifted us with a story that just gets more intricate and engaging, touching on issues of the impartiality of scientists, knowledge of physics by laypeople, and deceptive statistics. If anything, the sordid affair give the impression that (1) there are an almost unlimited number of ways to bend the rules (2) physics and statistics may not be the objective arbiters they may seem.
“11 of the New England Patriots’ 12 allotted game footballs in Sunday’s AFC championship game were each under-inflated by 2 pounds of air per square inch…The ball is, by rule, to be inflated with 12.5 to 13.5 pounds of air per square inch and weigh 14 to 15 ounces.”
As noted by many, including ESPN’s Sport Science, playing with an underinflated ball will have a negligible effect on the velocity of passes. Rather, the advantage presumably relates to an ability to grip the ball, especially on Cold and Rainy New England nights. Since the Patriots won handily, few believe that non-conforming footballs played a difference in the outcome. However, head coach Bill Belichick’s amazing run of six Super Bowl appearances in 14 season with the Patriots has already been tinged with a reputation to get creative with the rules, notably in the Spygate incident. In a press conference, Mr. Belichick denied any wrongdoing in regard to deflategate, and provided a somewhat confused “scientific” explanation:
“Now, we all know that air pressure is a function of the atmospheric conditions. It’s a function of that. So if there’s activity in the ball relative to the rubbing process, I think that explains why, When we gave them to the officials, and the officials put it out, let’s say 12.5, that once the ball reached its equilibrium state, it was closer to 11.5, but that’s, again, that’s just our measurements.”
This prompted a response by the original Science Guy…
Notice that, at least in this edit, the video shows Nye using an appeal to (his own eminent) authority and admitted bias toward Seattle rather than the Ideal gas law or something one would usually expect from a science guy. This other video has a little more science, although you should note that no quantitative data was recorded. Also, Mr. Nye takes time to discuss climate change. Does this mean that only Seahawk fans believe in climate change, or is it an objective reality?
Neil deGrasse Tyson admitted he made a error in an tweet about the implausibility New England’s explanation when he neglected to account for the difference between gauge pressure and absolute pressure.
However, there are many who claim that the Ideal Gas Law does show that nothing untoward was going on, and that the drop in pressure can be explained by the difference in temperature alone between the room where the footballs were tested and the playing field. Being Boston, there is a plentiful supply of academics who happen to be Patriot supports. The Boston Globe interviewed scientists from some local schools (MIT, Boston University, Harvard) who were unanimous in exonerating the home team.
And Binzel acknowledges being a Patriots fan, but notes: “The laws of physics know no fandom. The laws of physics play no favorites.”
The NFL has turned to the Columbia University physics department, a place with, presuamly, a nonzero number of Jets fans who have a good memory of Spygate.
For those who think that deflate gate is overblown – which includes many football fans – consider this controversy as a microcosm of some very real issues about how we determine truth in our society.
Damn Lies and Statistics
While physicists were enjoying their day in the sun, statisticians also got a chance to join the fray when an analysis of the Patriots skill at not fumbling got traction on sites like Slate and Yahoo Sports. The allegation was clear: New England was using under-inflated footballs to achieve a specific unfair advantage, and the numbers added up to pretty damning evidence: “Maybe the smoking gun isn’t in a bathroom at Gillette Stadium. Maybe it’s in the laptop of a civil engineer in Washington, D.C.” A number like 1-in-16,234 was thrown around to represent the “nearly impossible” chance that there was a innocent explanation.
But not so fast! FiveThirtyEight blog was able to identify an impressive array of statisticians who disagreed with the result, saying that NE is not an outlier at all when properly analyzed. Problems like excluding teams that play home games in domes, wrongly including special teams plays (which use specially designated K-balls), and the often overlooks statistical fact that just because a random variable X is normally distributed does mean that 1/x is also.
Numbers don’t lie, but if you torture the data it will confess to anything.
Be More Adversarial
So what is the answer? Surprisingly, it is to have more arguments, not less. Our legal and political systems is adversarial system for a reason. We let ambition check ambition by making sure that each side has an incentive to scrutinize the other for weaknesses in their argument. Expert witnesses can be biased (not least by the hope of being called on again), so often the prosecution and defense will each have their own. The most important participant in a meeting is not the Yes-Man, but the devil’s advocate.
There are many sociological experiments that show we are more skeptical of an argument when we disagree with the outcome. We are more likely to spot tricky math mistakes when used to argue against, rather than for, our favored position. Brain scans show us thinking harder when challenged with evidence we don’t like. People stare at “test strips” longer when told they will change color to indicate the absence of disease. In science, while the system of peer review is far from perfect, it remains necessary to have an outsider check the work.