The Confident Uncertainty Paradox

The confident uncertainty paradox is manifested at the knowledge frontier where we either cannot describe a phenomenon with certainty and/or we cannot say with confidence and reliability why the phenomenon occurs. You know you are at the knowledge frontier when you cannot make accurate and reliable forecasts. Examples of current frontiers of knowledge would include global warming, education, the role of culture in life success, and macroeconomics. In all instances we cannot make accurate and reliable predictions in the “If X then Y” fashion.

The paradox is that at that frontier we seem to see a much greater demonstrated confidence, harsh advocacy and vocal arguments for one position or another even though all parties, when pressed, will acknowledge we are dealing with uncertain data and complex causation. A classic example of this confident uncertainty is that of Al Gore vis-à-vis global warming - “The science is settled”; an odd formulation given that science by its definition and nature is always in transition. We are always learning more that refines what we thought we knew in the past. A useful phrase rhetorically but not accurate. Science is never settled.

So why is it such a common phenomenon that our discussions about things we know the least about take on the tone of overweening confidence? I suspect the answer lies around two interlocking dynamics.

Confidence bolsters resolve. Discovery is expensive and difficult and frequently unrewarding. In order to advance the frontier of knowledge you have to make investments , exert effort and take risks. In order to do that, you have to have an overwhelming confidence in the rightness of your effort. Without that confidence and in the face of setbacks and disappointments, you are likely to abandon your goals. Many breakthroughs arise from long periods of effort, loss and non-recognition. During that period, motivational sustenance is sometimes buttressed by dramatically overstating one’s case.

Discovery is usually the catalyst of change. When something new is discovered it disrupts the status quo in some fashion – socially, economically, commercially, scientifically, technologically. Whenever there is disruption there are winners and losers. People profiting from the status quo are at risk of losing what they enjoy. People at the frontier have an opportunity to reap huge gains at their expense. In this contest between potential losers and potential winners, there is a rich environment for rhetoric. Those in the status quo with most to lose, will rhetorically cast change as a threat to mom, apple pie and the American way. Those at the frontier with the most to gain will rhetorically issue a call to the shining city on the hill. Everyone has a stake in overstating what the data and knowledge will actually support.