[Charles Rykken]

I have a strong background in science in spite of the fact I am a serious arts and humanities person. I believe that when discussing science you must have access to data. By access I mean not only the actual data but the competence to understand what it says. An example of a lack of understanding is the work done by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky on behavioral economics where they demonstrated that only a minority have more than the foggiest comprehension of basic statistics. As you are well aware, as a student of psychology, statistics has become a mainstay of epistemological assertions in almost all areas of science except mathematics. Ironically, statistics I am sure you also know about the fact that psychology has the worst record in the recent replication crisis. When you are discussing qualitative aspects of relationships with no reference to grounding discussions, especially in the case of discussions about a scientific topic like climate change, you are leaving out the most important elephant in the room. There is a very interesting talk at TEDx by the Law professor at Yale, Dan Kahan

<yt-formatted-string force-default-style=””>Are Smart People Ruining Democracy? | Dan Kahan | TEDxVienna</yt-formatted-string>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KFtQV7SiII<yt-formatted-string force-default-style=””>
</yt-formatted-string>

BTW, I am a poster child for the “science curious” I am a polymath in philosophical journalism. What that means is I am interested in any topic that has relevance to philosophical questions like what is reality, truth, beauty, the good etc. Presently I am in the middle of a full immersion in genetics, evolution and neuroscience.