Page 62 - WTP Vol. VIII#2

The Confidence Paradox (continued from preceding page)
tend to believe drinking cow’s milk is beneficial, and that milk flies off the shelves of supermarkets across the United States? Ask a well-intentioned mom or pop to justify their beliefs about milk, and you’re likely to hear something about how milk is just plain good for you; everybody knows that.
But what about human allergies to dairy milk? What about high levels of cholesterol and artery-clogging saturated fat in cow’s milk and cheese leading to coronary heart disease, stroke, and, cardiovascular disease? Or consider the estimated 65 to 75 percent of the world’s population that is lactose intoler-
ant (a condition far less widespread in Northern European genepools), let alone the fact that cow’s milk evolved as a nutrient for calves rather than for human babies, to say nothing about human adults. The reality is that dairy products—promoted by some health organizations as beneficial and dispar- aged by others as planet- and people-destroying bilge—is controversial and confusing. The bottom line is that health effects associated with consuming dairy products vary widely among individuals, and the jury is still out on a host of potential plusses and minuses.
What about glutens then? Is the consumption of glutens as unhealthy as some people swear? Ask the most ardent detractors what, exactly, a gluten is and many will be unable to explain even basic facts. The word itself conjures an image of a chunky-bottomed overeater, so the stuff must be bad for you, right? In fact, gluten is a mixture of two proteins in grains, such as wheat, barley, and rye, that triggers the autoimmune disorder of celiac disease, which dam- ages the wall of the small intestine. However, ac- cording the Mayo Clinic, a source of health informa- tion more reliable than many others on the internet, scant research has been done on the health benefits (such as weight loss or improved health and athletic performance) of gluten freedom in the majority
of people who do not suffer from a gluten-related medical condition. One of many possibilities is that those who identify as gluten-sensitive are react-
ing to partly absorbed carbs (called FODMAPs for fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols) and not gluten at all.
Similar faults in reasoning apply to opinions about genetically modified organisms, or GMOs for short. Individuals adamantly opposed to their production and consumption as food are unlikely to appreciate the widespread reliance of humankind on genetic selection and modification through history. Genetic modification in plants today involves inserting a
specific stretch of DNA into the genome of one plant species, giving it some new and presumably desir- able characteristic, such as increased yield or re- sistance to disease. Genes are introduced into plant cells either as particles coated onto gold or tung- sten metal and physically shot into recipient cells
or else are introduced by a bacterium. The modified cells are usually grown in culture so they can devel- op into mature plants and produce seeds inheriting the new DNA. Humans have been genetically select- ing and selectively breeding crops and animals to modify them for various reasons for thousands of years. In the past, it’s true cross breeding was lim- ited to similar species, whereas now the constraint no longer applies, and the mechanism differs. In addition, perhaps some antagonists are reminded of the horrors of human eugenics during WWII when contemplating the idea or “slippery slope” of genetic modification in plants today. In any event, heated debate on such topics often invokes political, economic, moral, ethical, and religious arguments, and the paradox is that the most pertinent facts, scientific ones, are often misunderstood or ignored. All too often, disputes arise among people full of in- tense feeling but little knowledge. That is certainly the case for modern-era anti-vaccination fictions reinforced by belief bias rather than scientific or medical facts.
In confirmation bias, we actively look for ways to justify or defend existing beliefs or preconceptions and ignore or deny conflicting information. Homo- sexuality is a choice, or it’s not. Either way, we’re quite sure about it. People who feel most certain that gay people choose to be gay often say they have gay friends, so they cannot be biased. Or they might have a colleague at work who’s gay, and they are sure gay people pick their sexuality because “normal” people are heterosexual, besides a friend knows somebody who made the choice to be gay, or a parent is convinced it happens that way, or their pastor says it is so, and the Bible commands a man who sleeps with a man shall be put to death. Such people often ignore what gay people—the real ex- perts—say about the actual experience of growing up gay, namely, their sexual orientation was not a decision. Certainly that is the case for me and every LGBT person I’ve ever known. Indeed, an absence of choice regarding sexual preference makes more sense, given the persecution gays confront from childhood, along with other aversive realities.
Climate change is real, or it’s baloney. Which is it? Let’s say a friend or relative claims CO2 levels on Earth were much higher in the distant past (true,
55