Slashdot Mirror
The "Scientific Impotence" Excuse
chichilalescu writes "I've had the feeling for a long time that people refuse to listen to scientists. The following is from an article on Ars Technica: 'It's hardly a secret that large segments of the population choose not to accept scientific data because it conflicts with their predefined beliefs: economic, political, religious, or otherwise. But many studies have indicated that these same people aren't happy with viewing themselves as anti-science, which can create a state of cognitive dissonance. That has left psychologists pondering the methods that these people use to rationalize the conflict. A study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology [abstract here] takes a look at one of these methods, which the authors term "scientific impotence" — the decision that science can't actually address the issue at hand properly.' The study found that 'regardless of whether the information presented confirmed or contradicted [the subjects'] existing beliefs, all of them came away from the reading with their beliefs strengthened."
I don't need a psychology degree to tell you right now what the problem is: religion. Faith makes a virtue out of not thinking. And if you accept rational science then you're doing something morally wrong.
... aren't intelligent enough to assess the quality of their own thinking. In fact most people aren't even able to think straight most of the time. The human mind is not built for the kind of obtuse rationality that scientists often communicate in.
Scientists really have to do a better job at communicating clearly with less jargon, I think part of the problem is not being able to demonstrate the effects in a tangible way that is undenibale. I think the use of metaphors and communicating complex things in terms of everyday things that people can understand would go a long ways to help people understanding the contradictions.
You really have to catch people in contradictions in a public venue with an argument that is simple to understand and you'd look like an idiot for not accepting.
Half of the population are dumber than the other half!
However I am not sure for which half the original article was intended for.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
That the study was done entirely on slashdot posts.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Most of the people I know who fall under this description dislike psychologists the most of all scientists and/or academics. I doubt that this will help change anything; it'll probably just make it worse.
This article is clearly wrong, and my beliefs have been strengthened.
This supports my larger theory of "People are idiots". Look, lemme explain this one in great detail for you: We live in a culture that has become so self-absorbed, we are unable to consider the idea that we may actually be wrong. We are unwilling to consider that our own belief may be mistaken. And at the current rate we're going, that's not going to change any time soon.
Activists on both sides of an issue do the same thing. Each side chooses the evidence that supports their predetermined belief.
The other side of "scientific impotence" is "appeal to authority".
Once issues become politicalized it becomes very difficult to make a scientific judgement one way or another because of all the competing agendas and misinformation on both sides.
Part of the problem is that science is a moving target. Look at dietary and nutritional science. If you're a baby boomer, you've heard scientists say umpteen different things over the last 40 years. People don't mind some change, but they don't like their belief systems upturned regularly by a system that is founded on constant change, but says it speaks "the truth". The truth is very slippery. Look at Fred Hoyle. The guy just couldn't come to grips with the Big Bang. And yet, if you want to get technical about it, what we currently think is "the truth" about the origin of the universe is a collection of models that agree with the data to some extent. Some of these models are guaranteed to be overturned.
Is it any wonder that people are resistant to the pressure to change?
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
...that challenging someone who has cognitive dissonance strengthens their will. We're stubborn people, our heads are full of tangled webs of experiences from childhood to the present that forges what we want to believe and what we'll accept and how we'll view it. Most people have their minds made up on a subject well before they see any actual data. It all explains why so many really stupid things happen.
This is one reason I'm so very suspicious of certain kinds of social science. It's so very easy to rationalize predetermined conclusions when it's not easy to run experiments after the theory has been created.
Evolutionary biology, for example, has a just so story for explaining why our society is the way it is as far as relations between men and women. But I think it's all quite suspiciously convenient.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Don't paint all religions with the same brush. I consider myself to be quite religious, but I am not a slave to blind faith. My religion says that the universe was created when a giant cow licked a huge block of salt... while that may be what my religion says, I have zero doubt in my mind that it did not happen that way.
People who fail to examine their religion in the context of which it was written are doomed to falling into the traps of blind faith. Those who can look at their religion for what it is, can rectify it with modern knowledge, and can take into account the effects of history (revisions, political influences, lost texts etc) are able to differentiate religion and faith and have no trouble at all accepting scientific knowledge.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
I think you'll find that most of the mistrust people harbour about scientists, and science in general, comes from the fact that the media tends to 'definitively' interpret the results of non-definitive studies. Or over-report studies that, when peer-reviewed, fall apart like a... well, like a poorly-built motorcycle.
But never underestimate the power of hucksters operating under the guise of 'chiropractor', 'naturopath', or 'one who speaks for the man/men in the sky'. They tell you with a straight face that these people who have nothing to gain by lying, and who have dedicated their lives to understanding how things work through empirical research, and who aren't trying to take your money, are not to be trusted. The last few decades have given rise to a real resurgence of anecdotal 'fact' over the scientific method, and it's kind of scary.
Yeah, "most people" are too dumb to heed scientific finding unlike you obviously. Look at how science is reported, particularly medicine/health stories, and you're probably better of ignoring them.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
I completely understand why many people aren't as quick to believe everything scientists say. Simply because scientific -fact- seems to change every few years. A few years ago scientists said there were 9 planets. Now there's 8. First there was no water on the moon, now there is. As far as science is concerned, theres no problem with updating facts and theories as new information is obtained. But most people don't work like that. As far as they're concerned, you're the same as the guy who keeps changing his story every time you ask a question.
The problem is that scientists will call you ignorant or stupid if you stop believing every word they say just because you know there's a good chance of them saying something different in a short while.
Religion on the other hand, rarely changes its story.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
Even a murderer sees himself as a good person. Everyone is the hero of his own story (in his own mind). So why would it surprise you when a bigot doesn't see himself as a bigot, or when an anti-intellectual doesn't see himself as an anti-intellectual, or when a sexist doesn't see himself as a sexist for using "himself" and "his" exclusively in his writing?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Jesus christ what a great new! :P
Read it!
Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true you're a pal and a cosmonaut.
And if you through a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say thank you for being a friend.
...choose not to accept scientific data because it conflicts with their predefined beliefs...
In other words, people are prejudiced, whether one's bias is a matter of religion or a firm belief in the aether doesn't really matter. Certainly there are those that oppose anything a person in a lab coat (or a tweed jacket) might say but this is well known behaviour. If the purpose of the paper was just to give a name to this phenomena then personally I'd rather they came up with something more descriptive rather than pandering to the need for a snappy headline.
I don't see what this has to do with science specifically: I'd have just as much luck convincing a creationist that Buddha put the bones there as I would getting them to accept evolution through natural selection. If someone is set in their ways you'll be hard pressed to convince them no matter how you came to whatever it is you're arguing.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
... more like an entitlement mindset.
Religion, and the idea of God in general, springs from the basic notion that the universe owes you something. Eternal life, accountability, a reason to live, the "answers."
Science, on the other hand, starts from the premise that whatever secrets Mother Nature holds will have to be earned through hard work. There are no promises of results and no guarantees that understanding will ever be reached.
So is it any wonder that so many people take the easy way out and choose faith instead?
As for myself, it's not that I believe that science cannot address the issue (though sometimes I do believe that is the case), but that I don't trust the experimentation method or the impetus behind the experiment. Far too often the "science" in question has an agenda behind it - political, business, social or whatever.
For example, one can find scientific studies which indicate that high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy. There are also studies which will indicate that there is nothing at all wrong with high fructose corn syrup. Both studies (supposedly) use scientific methods to arrive at their conclusions. Therefore, ultimately, a person is left to his own beliefs to decide which study (if any) is correct.
Proverbs 21:19
Exzachary. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, not its permanent acquisition. Belief presents itself as acquisition with no need to go any further.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
The idea that science can answer questions about reality is itself a religion. For example, you cannot see atoms and you cannot see the big bang, evolution or even global warming and yet billions of people mindlessly believe these ythings without question simply on the authority of the left wing "science" touting powerful and wealthy elite.
It's like Viagra for your brain!
...and boy, am I glad the bottom 99% is making the important decisions.
This is actually not new (although the name is new to me at least). Back in the 90s they did studies on various hot button political issues like the death penalty. They gave the same sheet of facts to death penalty supporters and opponents and told them to read them. When they came out, both sides claimed their views had been strengthened.
There was a study done some years ago where different groups were given tests to determine bias towards a given or accepted premise. Scientists where shown to be just as and in some cases more likely to fail a given puzzle due to reluctance to let go of a given premise and try another one. So we should be careful to equate "scientist" with "right." Facts are facts as we know them. That isn't to say they should be ignored either but skepticism is just as healthy where science is concerned as it is where religion, philosophy, politics, or anything else is. In fact, it's probably more important as science is the pursuit of the knowledge of what we see, hear, and smell.
How many times have we heared that "clinical trials have proved that doing ... will increase cancer risk" only to have an oposite study published next week. Contrary to popular belief science doesn't always agrea with itself, so why fault people for not believing it at face value.
--Accept it, I'm a programmer and don't use spellcheck. As long as I spell things wrong consistently my programs work fi
I don't need a psychology degree to tell you right now what the problem is: religion.
I think religion is a factor, but there's something else going on because while most *Americans* identify with Christianity, actual Bible Thumpers and indeed regular church goers are a minority.
First, distrust of science is primarily in the softer sciences like psychology, environmental sciences, and such; no one really questions the atom smashers, the "high-tech" scientists. I think that many people believe that these "soft scientists" are not actually objective, and let "wishy-washy" environmentalism and other perceived leftyism influence their findings; that they set out with an subjective objective and mold their science to fit their personal views.
Clearly, in many cases, this is true, and it has tainted all "soft science".
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
For me, without being able to replicate experimental results personally, perform higher math easily, or penetrate the often obtuse language of scientific publications means that while I can consider a hypothesis or theory, I'm basically doing what those who follow the teachings of a religion are doing...interpreting someone else's work by using my common experience.
The fact that I believe science is largely accurate and a better way to describe our surroundings than religion is as much faith as someone who believes in their religion. Scientific Impotence is another way of saying "I'd like to recognize that alternate faith, but I still think mine is more valid."
It's tribalism. Fundamentalist Islam? Tribalism. Fundamentalist Christianity? Tribalism. Hassidic Judaism? Tribalism. Tribalism tells you that you mustn't rock the boat but defer to the authority of the elders. Tribalism tells you the other side is bad because they are from the other side of the valley/from the other side of the lake/Communists/Socialists/Fascists/Catholics/Protestants/Different from us. Religion, like nationalism, or political party is usually just a big tribe.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Sounds like my girlefriend. Note to self: Gotta get a new girlfriend.
The problem is with everybody, including "scientists" themselves, as Richard Feynman pointed out,
... I never pay any attention to anything by "experts." I calculate everything myself... I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions.
And he elaborates more in his lecture (and an adapted chapter in his book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman):
A few years ago scientists said there were 9 planets. Now there's 8.
Why don't you bend over and show me Uranus?
Call me a heretic if you want, but...
Given two groups - one which changes its beliefs when confronted with contradictory evidence, and another which simply ignores the evidence - I'll put my faith in the first group.
Scientists are people as well - "choose not to accept scientific data because it conflicts with their predefined beliefs". They can have the same problem, and I would bet it happens a lot once careers, huge grants and academic prestige and huge egos get into play. A white lab coat does not make you a super-people, a god, infallible, incapable of being wrong, or corrupt, or bribe-able, or blackmail-able, or otherwise influenced adversely.
The "scientific community" has been seriously wrong down through the ages on any number of subjects, the "consensus", the predetermined "beliefs" lead to rote conformity, a herd mentality, and the inability to admit facts and data that where staring them in the face.
why people don't believe demonstrable facts, and instead concentrate on how we can exploit that. The churches figured this all out centuries ago, surely the scientific community can too.
Nullius in verba
Which is why every so called 'fact' should be accompanied with a degree of probability, even if it's very rough. In my view, probabilities are underused massively in just about every area, just because publishers don't think the 'stupid public' could understand them. It's really sad.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
To me this piece is rather interesting (and the commentary) because it offers a glimpse into two very distinct mindsets: the view that we are all programmable machines and if only we get the "right" information in and all the "wrong" information out then everything will be fine, and the view that somehow, someway we come preprogrammed and thus have a tendency to self-select data that supports our personal beliefs.
Why do we persist in continuing to believe that somehow we'll cure the problem of religious fundamentalism if only we pound enough data through everyone's skull? Because there is the pervasive belief that we're just programmable machines. Well if that's so, then why in this day and age do we STILL have people who believe in Creationism? Or ID? Or climate change being false? Wouldn't an overload of correct information purge those beliefs away?
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
An important detail is missing here: Scientists don't say those things! The media does. Scientists say "Based on our recent observations/experiments, there may be a correlation with this reading and proof of x." The media follows with "Science proves x beyond a doubt! Panic!"
Religion will always offer an answer that science must admit it does not know. Science, by not knowing, is beautiful to me. It is the search. The problem is when people don't have the simplistic car analogy or capacity/education to understand something, they'd rather compartmentalize their unknown to a rational, safe place. This is SOP for people because it is at the center of their coping mechanisms. At one time, it was a man-god with a flaming chariot crossing the sky of a flat earth. As Pumba reckoned, it's a nuclear fusion fireball... but he was an odd duck. Most people don't want to care because they have no control over it. If the Sun goes off with a harsh explosion, we all have 8 minutes. Do we sit and worry about the huge fusion nuke bomb going off all the time, or do we go get a tan? A tan is more rational. But once you decide the Sun is a good thing, you don't think about it all the time. 2000 years ago, it was better to let Apollo do his daily deal, and not worry about it. Not much has changed; just the rationalizations made by the people spewing the garbage to maintain ever more social control. The more things get complex, the more this phenomenon will permeate. We're peaking as a species with what we understand as individuals. We are too specialized. So instead of explaining the basics of new things, we do car analogies and football fields, and failing that, we say to the rest that it's God's Will, and Allah's Might. And 7,000,000,000 idiots all get along to a lesser degree.
Well, that is in part due to the fact that descriptive, phenomenological science is not differentiated from explanatory, theory-building science. Whether we categorize planets one way or the other has no impact on the theory how they move.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Seriously, who cares? What is with this obsession with current attitudes towards science? If your science is sound then who cares? I have read at least 3 articles in the past month in the same spirit and I'm finding it hard to agree. Science shouldn't care what the world thinks IMHO. Let people worry about how to treat the message, just be the messenger.
If you think I'm going to argue with someone over their beliefs and refute them with science, then you must think I'm a damn fool. That whole you can lead a horse to water thing. Idiocy isn't a new phenomenon and there is no danger to science in general.
The overwhelming majority of people are inclined to make stuff up and pretend its true. And there's no way to demonstrate to most people that scientists as a group are not like this also. Some people trust scientists as a matter of faith. A very few become subject matter experts and verify for themselves that the science is accurate. Many people fall somewhere in between. For the rest, skepticism is a fairly rational outlook, given the information they have.
For people to rationally trust scientists, they themselves would have to be honest. And that would be a fairly radical change.
The planets thing is nomenclature. The rest of it is not down to science, it's down to the reporting of science. If journalists didn't dumb it down so much, and reported with less hyperbole, people would leap to fewer erroneous conclusions.
Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
You seem to misunderstand science.
First off, lets talk about pluto. There are no new "facts" here, just a standardization of definitions. There was a time when "planet" meant "anything big orbiting the sun". When it turned out there were millions of big things orbiting the sun, scientists needed to decide just how big a thing had to be. The only two serious options were one that would increase the number of planets immediately to 12 and probably upwards of 40 eventually, and one that would reduce the number of planets to 8 and probably leave it there.
Next, water on the moon. We looked for water on the moon once, and didn't find it. Scientists announce "we can't find any water on the moon". Journalists announce "there is no water on the moon". Later, scientists crash a lump of metal into the moon with the energy of a small nuclear bomb, and find that there *is* some water, just deeper then they were able to look before. It's no more "scientific fact" changing then it would be if you looked everywhere for your keys and couldn't find them, announced that you probably left them in your car... then found them under the couch in a more through search.
The other scientific development often brought up in this regard is the whole "we once thought the earth was flat" thing. Guess what? We're never going to find out that we were wrong all along, and the earth really is flat. Never. We're never going to find out that the sun rotates around the earth. The reason is because scientific *facts* never change. Scientific hypotheses change every day, and theories change once in a while, but *facts* never change.
And in any case, which is better... being absolutely firm and unchanging (but wrong), or admitting your errors switching to the truth?
Moreover, pseudo-scientists like psychologists should be the last ones to berate people for ignoring science.
The clergy examined one of these methods, which the authors term "religious impotence" -- the decision that religion can't actually address the issue at hand properly. The study found that "regardless of whether the information presented confirmed or contradicted [the subjects'] existing beliefs, all of them came away from the reading with their beliefs strengthened."
Oops! Wrong article. NM.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
However Scientist when talking to the public often fail to explain the areas of doubt in their theory. So to the public it sounds like a guy who is saying something different all the time, but each time explains it in a way that want you to take it as the solid truth... Religion does the same thing however they have a more consistent message...
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Do scientists believe their own theories? Scientists disagree about everything, down to the basic principles of their specialty. I'm in graduate school getting my PhD. I've attended seminars, been in luncheons with "world-class scientists". I've witnessed them making up whatever theories they want, which fits in with their political/religious/ethnic beliefs. I was in a seminar the other day by a geneticist with a world-class reputation, who exposed a lot of seaminess in DNA sequencing technology, held to be the gospel truth in our society today. In reality, samples are easily contaminated by handling; a "sample" of caveman DNA was shown to be contaminated just by the presence of people in the same room, using standard laboratory procedures. Then she went right on to claim that modern polar bears are descended from Irish bears, and it was pretty clear she was just cheerleading her ethnic background.
How do supporters of this preposterous, so called, "scientific impotence theory" account for the fact that Science produces the world's entire supply of Viagra?
Scientia potestas est, and sometimes it is willing to share...
Getting someone to change their mind is extremely difficult, which is why Texas is trying to teach lies. But the honest truth is that truth (and by implication, science) is better at convincing the undecided then lies (and by implication any religious beliefs claiming to be science).
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
in todays world anything that is put to some sort of scientific scrutiny is considered scientific. that is totally wrong. science is supposed to be about the process of acquiring, and the knowledge, that is gained through observation and reproduction. but just because something has been subjected to scientific methods it does not qualify the subject itself as scientific.
i think that people shy away from science because of some of the claims that are made by scientists that are backed by nothing but conjecture. like oorts cloud. noone has fucking seen oorts cloud, not even oort himself, and yet it is referred to as if it fucking exists supposedly some 50,000 AU away. that my friends, is fucking make believe. you want to believe it? fine. thats youre fucking religion. dont fucking call it science because it is absolutely not. you want to believe that people can reconstruct an entire ape looking being from a tooth that later turns out to be a wild boars tooth, and place the reconstructed model AND his wife carrying a baby through some lava dust marsh land with hairy bodies (good fucking artist that can derive the amount of body hair from a tooth) and still to this day have it in museums? fine. people love make believe, thats why hollywood is so banked. but do not fucking push that bullshit off on me as science because it is not, it is conjecture from the mind of people that think they know a whole fuckload more than they do.
"A great legend has grown up to plague both paleontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of; men can take a tooth or a small and broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped the Terriary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts." W. HOWELLS, Harvard.
Heh, sounds to me like it's the publishers of the study that are ignoring a logical conclusion.
If I firmly believe the environment is changing, and someone shows me a study saying the opposite, I'm not going to put my time into deconstructing the nonsense study. I'll reject it, without any problems of cognitive dissonance - I'll assume the researchers didn't do their job correctly (nobody's perfect!) or it's biased research by people who've studied science but are under the influence of politics or funders.
Enigma solved, dudes.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
...in ideas contradicted by first-hand evidence.
Especially religious belief in ideas like "socialism" and "man-made global warming."
regardless of whether the information presented confirmed or contradicted [the subjects’] existing beliefs, all of them came away from the reading with their beliefs strengthened.
You can’t win... If you contradict me, my faith shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine!
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
But as soon as you put a probability on it, loud buffoons will jump up and say "He's not certain so he must be wrong!" Certain segments of the population will believe them and suddenly you have science being torn apart by people who don't understand what they're talking about. Just look at the current global warming debate. Or creationism vs. evolution.
I think the biggest problem is that too many people are taught that science is just a bunch of "facts" that need to be memorized for the next test. Wikipedia has it about right when they define science as "a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories." If, instead of teaching people just the results that science comes up, we taught them the method through which science comes up with said results, I think more people could accept new findings.
How is the parent comment trolling?
"...choose not to accept scientific data because it conflicts with their predefined beliefs: economic, political, religious, or otherwise."
I find it interesting that most of the comments are centered around religion. It seems that economic, political, or other reasons are overlooked. The main point of the article is that people want to filter whatever fact or theory being placed before them though their own belief system. It is my opinion that is to maintain one's ego. "I believe this and nothing can disprove that ... your science is junk ... etc." What you may think is a science may be what you have turned into your own religion.
Which is why every so called 'fact' should be accompanied with a degree of probability, even if it's very rough.
Exactly - just look at how well that worked on Wall Street. Hey, that derivative has a 99.999999% chance of going up but 384%, and only a measly 0.000001% chance of losing 75%, so there is no chance that if we have 80 bazillion shares of 40,000 derivatives like this that we'll actually lose anything, right?
Or we could use the example of the space shuttle, which had a well-engineered set of parts that together only had a 1 in 10,000 chance of serious failure.
Numbers are only as good as the underlying model. Testing a model seems NP hard to me. The only way to know the shuttle failure rate is to launch it 100 times and see how many astronauts die. The only way to REALLY know the probability of the big bang being right is to create 10,000 model universes from the same (unknown) starting conditions as ours and see what conclusions the scientists who evolve in every one of them independently come up with.
I agree that changing science is part of the "problem". In fact, I would go further to say that science is sometimes wrong and even manipulated. Scientists who participate in big projects with lots of funding are often critical of challenges to their research because challenges put their grants at stake. This is why "cold fusion" was so violently rejected by the established scientific community during the 80s: it challenged the billions of dollars of research funds involved in building Tokamaks.
But I have to disagree that religion rarely changes. Take the Bible for example. The bible is a compilation of texts. Someone chose which texts to include and which to leave out. Further, many biblical stories are rewritten legends that date back to Sumeria. Finally, mainstream religious leaders change their dogma from one generation to the next: e.g., the Catholic Church now accepts many scientific theories that it rejected not too long ago.
The original goal of religion must have been to explain the unknown. That is the goal of science. Unfortunately people hang onto established beliefs even when they are found to be untrue: thus, today's religions are out of harmony with science. The two should be in harmony.
What I personally have little patience for is when people accept religion without questioning: they "believe". That is not only irrational, but dangerous, because it leads to dogma, and a willingness to accept what someone else tells you without question. That is the foundation of religious extremism, and is the currency of terrorism.
That's a great example actually, because the # of planets in the solar system isn't really science, it is semantics. Astronomers didn't lose a planet, or realize that Pluto was actually a peanut someone dropped onto the lens of their telescope (doh!). They revised the definition of planet to clarify the meaning. The word was ambiguous from the start. No facts actually changed.
But to the lay person, the scientists were wrong. That's really unfortunate, and I'm not sure what can be done about it.
When a scientist 'proves' something to true (especially if it's something the pro-science people want to be true) it is accepted and opposing views discarded. That is the new, best truth. But if a year later the 'fact' is show to have actually been manufactured (for grant money, for fame, etc), then the believers often have a hard time letting go of said 'fact'.
Unless one personally reproduces the experiment behind whatever scientific fact they believe in, then it just that - a belief. Faith in some kind of god (invisible, physical, human, scientific, or whatever) is hard-wired in us.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
The difference between science and belief is that science observes phenomena and comes up with the most logical conclusion for why it happens. Belief answers why a pheonmena happens and rejects observations that contradict that answer.
Then I don't believe it.
ipv6 is my vpn
Sometimes people will become so emotionally-invested in a scientific "fact" that they will refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary.
Even if the evidence is gathered by the most rigorous scientific methodologies and the global scientific community as a whole accepts the new fact as an update to the old.
These are some of the most people to talk to, because they think they have science on their side, even though they don't.
We already had a word for this, many in fact. All of the following apply;
Willfully Ignorant
Idiot
Nutcase
May the alrighty power of Logic damn these unbelievers!!! How dare they refute the answer to the Great Question!
Or because they would be pulling the probabilities out of their ass. What is the probability that gravity is an attractive force? I don't know about 99.9999%, ouch my butt hurts.
Science like many other things has it's own internal politics. Unfortunately this can mean that whilst the ideal of science is great, real world science is as vulnerable to the same level of establishment dogma as politics and religion. For example if your beliefs (e.g. not agreeing with string theory) doesn't match up with those who are leading your department the chances of you getting tenure are slim to none. Similarly with funding and access to resources, if you have a hypothesis that the majority of your peers disagree with, you're going to have a hard time getting the funding or access to the equipment you need.
We should always aspire to the ideals of science but remember why the Royal Academy has a motto of "Nullius in Verba". Otherwise, we become as dogmatic as those we sneer at.
Pot meet Kettle.
I mean seriously, the scientific community is in no position to proclaim bias in accepting new ideas.
It is a human condition, and the sheer arrogance to suggest that science holds some sort of logical, ethical or even better position on the subject is ludicrous.
History is replete with the scientific community eating its own young.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
To heck with studies, or saying people should believe scientists.
Let's pull stats out of my ass.
The bible: Wrong consistently, but wrong once.
Scientists: Right sometimes, but 'wrong' every time they change it.
That is to say, a reasonable person can conclude scientists are wrong 'more often' than the bible, for a definition of "more often" that means--by numeric counts, as opposed to "percent of the time".
Now--let's continue extrapolating. I never finished my PhD. While in academia I personally witnessed
1) Disgustingly abusive use of grant money and resources to pursue research the entire community felt was valueless to get extra grad students for applications.
2) RealPolitik--people getting shunted off and having good research tanked for purely political reasons involving historic criticism.
3) Never one legitimate instance of fudging the data--but plenty of instances of people fucking with the conclusions. Statistic tests ran with different confidence intervals until they passed. "Highs and Lows" in tests pruned inconsistently, based upon analysis of the data to help regressions fit the model people expected.
4) Consistently poor and misleading analysis to get grants. Not just people fudging with graphs, tweaking scales in comparisons and visual aids, but people creating techniques that could *Never* work outside of a lab environment (provably), which they would submit and publish to use to apply for further grants on "related" fields.
In point of fact, scientists are some of the worst people in the world in terms of getting their data to fit their expected model--because many of them know the math to do it. It's incredibly helpful when understanding complex phenomena--but it's got nasty implications for "legitimacy" of research.
Don't even get me started on biomed papers I've read, the notion of functional "double blind" tests appears to be bullshit as best I can tell, based on actual experience participating as a subject in clinical research trials for medical drugs. I don't know how they screw it up--but the doctors administrating often know within a week if you're on the real medicine or not. Probably because they hand out the same placebos in every trial. In addition to the fact that they don't appear to give out varied doses of the placebo, but they do with the 'real' medicine.
Science is better than religion--but placing faith in scientists in a ridiculous mistake. And people saying you shouldn't doubt science are full of shit--it's the damned confidence in a simple conclusion by people that ought to know better that provides all the reason I need to doubt.
" 'It's hardly a secret that large segments of the population choose not to accept scientific data"
The problem of the current society is not the ignorance or non-acceptance of science by population.
Lay people do not have to "accept" or "reject" science. Science becomes relevant to people only in the form of technology. For example, what was the origin of species has absolutely no relevance to practical life of people, for example, so people do not have to "accept" or "reject" the origin of species. In the contrary, "inheritance" and "mutability" as well as "selection" ("natural selection" proved by the way useless - too slow) are very relevant to people and have been used (without much pomposity) generations and generations before Darwin.
On the other hand, people do not have to "accept" or "reject" the "ideology" of theoretical mechanics on the ideological level, because people CAN use it, and if they are using it without knowledge (sic! knowledge, not "acceptance") they are in very practical trouble, and if they are using it right, then they get immediate very unequivocal practical results, and those results exclude any ideological "acceptance" or "rejection".
Face it. There is useful science, and there is useless "science". One of them IS actually science, and the other is not.
Another point: if you have to forcefeed science to people, then there is no such "science". True science does not need ideology. True science is obvious (that's what my late scientific Teacher taught me, by the way, to work on a paper until the results become obvious).
Que to "troll" moderation.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The other side of "scientific impotence" is "appeal to authority".
There was once a guy on my favorite forum that argued politics a lot, and his favorite trick was to link to an encyclopedia entry on logical fallacies every time someone made an argument against him, pointing out which fallacy they had made. I once asked openly if there was a logical fallacy for people who replied to every question with an accusation of a logical fallacy rather than just arguing the merits of the question. His reply was that there was - but he wouldn't tell me which one it is.
The problem I have with your statement is that there are limits to the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. The A2AF would almost certainly come into play if, say, something was wrong with your company's business and you asked why it wasn't fixed, and you were told it wasn't being fixed because your boss said it was fine. The other stupid extreme there is that if your doctor says that you need a surgery but you argue that it's unnecessary, when your friends try to tell you that you should listen to your doctor, are you going to claim that they're just appealing to the doctor's authority?
There's got to be a hair to split around the difference between appealing to an arbitrary / managerial authority and appealing to a knowledgable / professional authority. There's a point at which appealing to the authority of a person who is highly trained in a specific background with relevant application to a "hard" science, one that is testable and falsifiable, should be relevant against an opposition that does not have that same depth of experience.
Once issues become politicalized it becomes very difficult to make a scientific judgement one way or another because of all the competing agendas and misinformation on both sides.
Many of the truly controversial scientific actions that occur lately have been cases in which one side has a majority of scientists in agreement with them, while the other appeals to a very small subset of scientists who gain notoriety by positing contradictory theories, without even bringing up the issue of who may be funding either group or if they have the relevant scientific backgrounds. We're supposed to believe that the opinions of a few are supposed to be given equal weight and consideration as the greater opinion against them, even without published methods or peer examination. I've got a different logical fallacy for that - the false equivalency.
And what you've just said is a well-known political tactic. If there's a scientific issue that comes out that certain people are nto comfortable with or stand to lose profits as a result, make it a political issue. Introduce contradictory evidence without fully sourcing it. When anyone says that your claims are biased and untrustworthy, claim the same thing right back at them. Claim that those scientists have just as much of an agenda as yours do. In this way, you can invalidate a scientific opinion in the public trust.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Religion doesn't Talk. so yes. The priests are quite a other matter .
This just in... stupid people aren't happy when they realize they're stupid. Full story at 11.
People's understanding of issues is heavily determined by how they are framed. The frame sets the questions, which in turn point to the answers. Answering "Which side of the issue are you on?" means choosing one of exactly two sides.
Once an issue is politicized like this it ceases to be a question of truth and becomes a matter of identity. You may ask, "Do you believe in evolution?" But that is not the question many people will answer. What they really hear is, "Do you believe in evolution, or are a God-fearing person like us?" Then their answer is not so much a negative rejection of evolution as a positive affirmation of who they are and their membership in a community.
How did evolution become incompatible with being part of a community? This happened not by explicit argument, but by subtle framing of politics. You say that there are two sides to an issue. But that division into two is exactly the moment of politicization. Which side are you on? Are you with us or against us? Do you believe in evolution or do you believe in God?
Would you sacrifice your friends and your community and your sense of who you are in order to believe in an abstract theory that has no bearing on your day-to-day life? I think it is perfectly rational to say no regardless of the evidence. We need community to give life meaning. It's in our blood as human beings. But community life is impoverished in our lonely society. We cling to it when we find it.
Nor does this apply only to religious folk. Say you had a revelatory experience of God that showed evolution to be false. Imagine the social and personal implications of denying evolution. Would you believe, or would you imagine it was a hallucination? As an atheist, I can imagine the former would require a wrenching reconstruction of my identity and relationships to other people.
What you say is true in general: people tend to choose the evidence that suits them (though this is not symmetrical: some people, groups and arguments are more honest than others). My point, however, is that the logic you are criticizing is embedded in the very language of your post. Your acceptance that there are two sides - not one, not three - is where the slippery slope begins.
There's a bigger problem than people not accepting science... it's people claiming their scientifically inaccurate beliefs are scientific.
Just to be a difficult person, I'll select an example that people here probably won't like. The Grand Canyon. Science says it was created very quickly, likely being a breached natural dam. Reason one: compare elevations at various points along canyon. it's actually a ridiculously long ridge that water flows through. The top of the canyon at its highest point is much, much higher than where the river enters the canyon. Reason two: near the beginning of the canyon, (now dried) rivers join the Colorado River at unnatural angles, which would have caused water to flow one way, then change its flow direction more than 90 degrees when it joined the river. This is a sign of water running off of a breached dam, joining the main river, and flowing back out through the breach point.
Now, without even touching on a ID vs Evolution debate, because I don't want a flame war, people all over still believe the GC was formed over millions of years. Citing Reason one above, since when does water flow uphill?
Now, I'm not trying to pick one point and say I'm right about everything... I'm just saying that I think a bigger problem than rejection of science is non-science being disguised as science. And I'm talking about the non-science coming from BOTH sides of the ID vs Evolution debate. It's probably why nobody is ever interested in an actual debate on the topic, and instead just wants a flame war over it.
No, there is no "-1 I'LL NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG!!!" mod.
Religion on the other hand, rarely changes its story.
I agree with most of what you said up until this point. One need only look at the number of existing Christian denominations to see how much a religion can change. That is to say nothing of more differential Christian "offshoots" like Mormonism, Christian Science, and Jehova's Witnesses.
God himself changed from the vengeful Old Testament version to the warm and fuzzy New Testament version.
Jesus wasn't considered a deity until after 300 CE, which is also when the concept of the Holy Trinity came about.
The demonizing of alcohol by Christian organizations didn't happen until the 19th century (Jesus had wine at the last supper).
Galileo was pardoned by the Church in 1992.
Today the story of Adam and Eve is "not meant to be taken literally", but at the time the Old Testament was written, I don't see how else it would have been interpreted.
So, to say that religion never changes its story is foolish. Yes, both scientific conclusions and religious beliefs will change. This is largely because people change, societies change, and cultures change. The thing with religion is that it easy to shop around until you find one that "fits" with an existing view. Science does not work that way.
Have you ever tried to explain an idea that matters to someone else? If they have a stake in what you're talking about, and you go around qualifying your statements with doubts and hedges, they freak. If they want you to be right, you're a waffling doubletalker and a muddler of their agenda. If they want you to be wrong, you're a threatening goon who's just shown them a weakness.
Pitchforks and torches ensue either way. Those who propose to speak to the public at all are duly warned.
Your best bet is to speak with authority, as far as you can substantiate, and spent the rest of your time correcting the misapprehensions caused by poor listening, third-hand accounts of your message, and the media agenda of fitting everything into an entertaining narrative.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
but I still maintain that it is the best way for pursuing knowledge. In fact, science is all about renewing itself, reviewing itself and progress. Yes, I know that there are a lot of horseshit out there masquerading as science. There are authoritative pricks, there are oppressive fuckers, braindead platonicists, opportunistic paper-pumpers. Still. It. Is. The. Way.
No, I haven't RTFA, but there's plenty of evidence from the field (as it were) that those who are trained to think scientifically do not do so when their prestige (or even their chance of obtaining tenure) is on the line.
But scientists *do* say these things for a number of reasons, economical (grants, tenure), personal, or whatever. Further up in this thread someone gave the great example of the wildly changing child-rearing advice that has been given, by scientists, over the last 100 years, each time presented as "the truth".
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
1) Children not being taught critical thinking and have no training to deal with alternative aarguements to their own viewpoint
2) Learning that contrary to what the GOP wants you to thinks, changing you mind when new data comes in is NOT a bad thing.
3) Religion. It's very nature teaches people not to question things they believe.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Science doesn't speak with one voice on pretty much anything. Ask a group of paleontologists what happened to the Neanderthals or the Dinosaurs. Then run out, lock the door and come back two days later to let the survivor out.
Even when science does speak with one voice, it takes years for consensus to filter down because people who are not exposed to the debate (non-scientists) will continue to support things which have been proven wrong. Why? Well, because that's what they heard, and your new theory probably doesn't have a laundry list of "Here's how all previous theories were proven wrong" attached to it. You're telling people that the Celtics won the championship when they never found out that the Lakers had been eliminated in the second round. I can still pull up scientific articles that contain conjectures that are known to be wrong - yet they don't have that information about their legacy attached to them, so maybe I just assume that that's the "best" science.
"Science" is also known to be highly influenced by money. Scientists, like artists, need financial backing. The works they produce are sometimes tainted by that. Instead of doing pure, unbiased research, they are simply out with a mission from a master with an axe to grind on some issue.
Long story short: Science is done by people. And you can't trust people.
I completely understand why many people aren't as quick to believe everything scientists say. Simply because scientific -fact- seems to change every few years. A few years ago scientists said there were 9 planets. Now there's 8. First there was no water on the moon, now there is. As far as science is concerned, theres no problem with updating facts and theories as new information is obtained. But most people don't work like that. As far as they're concerned, you're the same as the guy who keeps changing his story every time you ask a question.
The problem is that scientists will call you ignorant or stupid if you stop believing every word they say just because you know there's a good chance of them saying something different in a short while.
Religion on the other hand, rarely changes its story.
Here's the thing I love about science -- you can test it. I'll be the first to admit that I don't instinctively believe quantum mechanics, relativity, and some of the weirder shit coming out of the theoretical community. It's all counterintuitive to me. So I say "prove it" and goddamn, they can do it in spades. The GPS system would be non-functional if it didn't take relativity into account. If Einstein hadn't thought it up when he did, we'd have ended up discovering it when we started finding errors we couldn't account for in the timing of the signals from the satellites, the same way the background radiation from the Big Bang was first discovered as noise screwing up an unrelated experiment. Accidental discoveries are some of the sweetest.
QM stuff doesn't make a lick of sense to me. It sounds like bullshit. But the physicists can put together experiments that can't be explained by anything but their theories. And if a better theory comes along, they'll replace it. I'm still gobsmacked by spooky action at a distance.
What we don't have on religion's side is experimental theology. There's no way to actually put the Lord thy God to the test. Could you imagine how awesome life would be if that actually were the case?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Theories change. There is a big difference between a theory and a fact.
HAND.
I think part of the problem here is that the ability for a human to be quickly and effectively indoctrinated by their parents is a survival skill. Little johnny, who listens to his momma and stays away from the river because of the crocodiles, is going to grow up big and strong while little bob, who is a hair more skeptical, is gonna be reptile food. This kind of indoctrination happens in peer groups for adults too, with left-wing scientist after left-wing scientist believing in global warming caused by humans, and right-wing pundit after right-wing pundit believing that gays in the military will destroy morale. Most of both of those beliefs are based on peer pressure and bullshit.
The funny part is when those who label themselves as godless find an unfounded faith, and when those who label themselves as devout end up defending the scientific method. Truly baffling.
NO. Scientific *facts* (that is to say, data and observations) do not change. What changes is terminology (which is why there are now eight planets when there were nine) or they get more and better data (which is why there is now water on the moon when once there was "none"). With the facts you build hypotheses, which are tested to the point that they become theories, which is the real currency of science. There is always a hedge, because science doesn't deal *in* facts, it deals *with* facts.
But, when asked, a scientist tells you the current understanding in plain language, which to the laymen sounds like, but isn't, a "fact". Because teaching or other interaction with the public shows scientists that most laymen are (at best) ignorant or (at worst) idiots.
This is why scientists drink a lot.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Whilst this entire story is being inundated with the usual 'attack religion' comments that slashdot spews out like my arse after a curry, I do want to raise a few points in this debate.
That is that quite simple, all sides of the climate change camp (as that is what this thread is about, even if the summary avoided mentioning it directly) are equally as guilty of blind faith.
The Business side will refuse any concept which jeopardises their profit margins
The Religious side will refuse any concept which does not match their religious texts
The Politic side will refuse any concept which is unlikely to get them elected
The Environmentalist side will refuse any concept which doesn't show that climate change is indisputably real and mankind is to blame
And
The Scientist side will refuse any concept which question their science, which is confusing as science has to be questioned for it to be science, else it is merely ideology or at worst, religion.
As for myself. I'm a geek, and think you can all kiss my ass. I hope you all die from your bickering before the planet cooks you alive.
Your bs arguing is interfering with my late night gaming sessions, now shut up so I can go play warcraft.
I still have yet to meet a scientist who is not biased by politics, morals, religion, money or things of this nature.
Scientists do what they need to do to make sure their data supports their predetermined conclusion.
Now, get our your calculator. Every idiot on Slashdot will post something about religion in this article. Use your calculator to add it up and you will know how many idiots we have here.
Only idiots (like Einstein and Newton) believe in God right? Common sense tells us that the physical universe just created itself out of thin air. There was not a single atom in existence anywhere, there wasn't even such a thing as an atom. Then in one split second the physical universe just popped into existence from nothing! Wow, that makes such good scientific sense. Thanks for enlightening us with your stupidity.
Gary Coleman's dead you insensitive clod!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/28/gary-coleman-dies-child-star
Science is rationally looking and collecting data. It's a process for removing variable and bias to get data. It's testing thing in a manner that could disprove them.
It's not a thing, it's a process.
You can't have usefull science and useless science. It's a complete flast dichotomy. There is only science.
"True science is obvious " Nonsense. The fact that two objects fall at the same rate was not obvious. The Science to determine it, observation, and testing showed that this non obvious thing is true. You cam do many tests to try and falsify it. That would be science.
Science is not something that can be rejected. Its a look at data and facts. To 'reject' science is to reject rational thought.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Belief is stronger than reason.
Man, do I have an ideology for you!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Peer review (as formalized by scientific journals gatekeeping their publishing) is not a necessary part of the process. The idea that somehow having an elite few "review" a paper makes it immune to the critique that it is an appeal to authority is false on its face.
Science is about creating falsifiable hypotheses to explain observations, engaging in more observations, and either modifying or discarding hypotheses.
When Phil Jones mentions that none of the peer reviewers of his papers ever asked for his raw data, it shines a bright light on exactly what peer review is, and what it isn't. It is *not* science. It *is* a way of restricting publishing. Let's not confuse the two.
A belief is just an assertion that may or may not be backed up by good facts. There's nothing about a belief itself that would inhibit someone from discarding it, or force someone to reject all contradictory conclusions.
Positioning "Science" and "Belief" as opposites is interesting. Science requires you to believe things. For instance, science requires that you believe in the usefulness of science. I think you're just trying to drag "Belief" through the mud by assigning it some sort of evil meaning.
+1 Interwesting
"Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
Is Viagra Popper related to Karl Popper?
...and I'm not an anti-intellectual, post-modernist, etc.
Look at the definition for ideology: "A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system."
In regards to science, that is empiricism. In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from sense experience. Note the word philosophy there.
Now if you can prove empiricism (the correctness of science as a tool) without circularity, more power to you, but that hasn't been done. Otherwise, all you have is a philosophy -- an idea that the tool you have is correct. Of course you can back your assertion by what the current methods have discovered, but that is a small subset of the total.
Why do so many scientists espouse the correctness of their philosophies by pointing to their methodology?
Why does Dawkins claim he can prove God doesn't exist because of his rationalism (based on science)?
Here's the real cognitive dissonance, you want to separate science from philosophy. Yet you, nor the "idols" of the domain, can't do this.
You point to your *method* as proof for your philosophy instead of *proving* your philosophy is right. Why? Because you can't.
I doesn't mean science is wrong as a tool, it doesn't mean I'm anti-intellectual.
It just means I'd like you to stop bastardizing science (and truth) by including your own philosophy.
“The point is that profound but contradictory ideas may exist side by side, if they are constructed from different materials and methods. and have different purposes. Each tells us something important about where we stand in the universe, and it is foolish to insist that they must despise each other.” -niel postman
sig loading.......
All religions change all the time. There is a difference between religion and faith, the first is absolutely terrible and the cause of the majority of the wars throughout mankind's history, the second is needed by the brain to understand certain things. religion was created to have people with the same beliefs come together and worship based on their beliefs, but over time it has been taken over by power hungry people (most not all religions) Almost all Judaism based religions are about control now. Because of this as peoples beliefs change so does the religion. The Catholic church now accepts ideas that it outlawed, the new testament replaced the old testiment because people could not reconcile a god who mass murders anymore. I can go on and on.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
It's not 'not accepting scientific data' it's not accepting conclusions. Why? For many reasons:
- the scientific method as commonly understood is frequently not applied by scientists.
- scientific methods are commonly misapplied to problems.
- ignorant usage of statistics by non-mathematicians is rampant.
- political motivation and problems associated with peer review for publication and grants.
The list could go on and on. Nullius in verba - if you don't apply that to 'scientific conclusions' you're just probably just as ignorant as the people you're criticizing.
Science requires you to believe things.
It most certainly does not. You're not "required" to believe in gravity, you can drop something and watch it fall. Ditto for pretty much everything else in science, subject to the limitations of the human form (one could, *in principle*, repeat the formation of life on Earth. There are just a few issues (timespan, lack of spare Earth) that make it difficult).
That an invisible man in the sky gets mad when two women make out - *that* requires belief.
Bzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing.
There were 9 planets. Now there are 8. Those are both facts because the definition of planet changed because the old definition was no longer useful. There is nothing at all inconsistent there. When a tool is no longer useful you change it or find a new tool.
The second claim of "there is no water on the moon, no wait now there is" was never a statement of fact it was a statement of knowledge. Any scientist in the field would say "we have no knowledge of water on the moon" and the media would reword that as "Scientist say moon is barren dry waterless husk of dryness!", so when scientists DO discover water on the moon and say "hey, we found something we hadn't seen before" the media now says "SCIENCE TURNED ON ITS HEAD, BARREN MOON NOW A LUSH WATER RICH ENVIRONMENT" because it makes good headlines.
I don't need a psychology degree to tell you right now what the problem is: religion. Faith makes a virtue out of not thinking. And if you accept rational science then you're doing something morally wrong.
I don't think that's it, exactly.
I think it's more a sort of inferiority complex. Basically, people don't want to feel that other people are fundamentally better than they are - particularly due to a little distinction like the level of education they've achieved. It's not as though more education does make a person fundamentally better - not necessarily - but they still feel that as a kind of threat. For a person to accept that scientist's argument at face value means acknowledging that, in some particular domain, at least, the scientist is the better person. The scientist has, presumably, studied his field in enough depth to be able to speak with authority and confidence on certain issues - but a non-scientist must simply take it as a matter of faith that the scientist really knows what they're talking about. This can be hard to accept: when you've studied something in depth, you can feel justified in dismissing lines of thought that you know, from experience, to be fruitless. But the non-scientist hasn't made this exploration, and so the dismissal of certain lines of reasoning just feels like a rejection. It can be difficult to accept the idea of other people in the world greater than oneself - whether in terms of strength, knowledge, or authority...
But the alternative places an uncomfortable burden on the scientist to pander to ignorance. Entertaining, rather than flatly rejecting, ignorant challenges to scientific ideas means engaging the discussion at the most basic levels - arguing points long-since resolved, to the extent anyone can be sure of anything, simply because the challenger hasn't taken the time to learn these concepts, or the reasons for their widespread acceptance.
I believe it's a problem not of religion, but of culture: we embrace the fantasy that no one is fundamentally better than anyone else, reject authority, and make our own decisions about where to place our trust... To some extent that's not a bad thing - it's good to question the status quo, and to have ambition beyond your current grasp - but there is a difference between challenging standard wisdom in ignorance of it and challenging it after gaining a thorough understanding of it. The latter is productive, the former is not. The fact that rejecting the superior knowledge of others is comforting is the problem - that's the reason why, when a religious sect advocates a perspective that's at odds with the established scientific knowledge of the world, this perspective has appeal.
Bow-ties are cool.
You conflate ideology with idealism.
Rationalism is the philosophy that underpines the scientific method.
Ideology:
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
Rationalism:
The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.
"unproven viewpoint espoused as truth by someone else."
Here is an excersise: Prove rationalism as a means for the scientific method without circularity or by example. Get back to me when you have a solution and can stop they hypocriticality.
It didn't begin that way, but it is becoming one.
Please explain your position. I am not rejecting your idea, but I am not inclined to fill in the blanks in your argument, either.
Bow-ties are cool.
...it's people. There are too many middle men out there with their own agendas for me to know what's true or not. And I've seen too many theories come and go to give any group the benefit of the doubt. Ironically enough, much of the skepticism we see nowadays is a vindication of the scientific method itself.
And yet I never had a college teacher in my 18 years of school that would teach like this. It was always cold hard fact being taught and if you disagreed then you were some religious fanatic.
For that matter I defy anyone to find the argument presented in this way in all of the history of slashdot. Maybe you can find one or two, but the overwhelming majority of times that the argument is brought up it's presented in the exact same way. This leads me to the assumption that my personal experience is pretty wide spread.
I think the problem through out history is that Science has been bent to the political will of the times at hand. Back in the day, astronomers were burned at the stake for alluding to the fact that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Today Scientists that dispute global warming have their funding pulled and are black balled by their peers. You are forced to tow the political line of those around you, making "scientists" only as reliable as who pays for their work.
congratulations. you are now officially gay, and can claim gay status on your income tax.
No actually, its not "becomming one". The people who have become disenchanted with their existing religion have taken their initial, inadequate, and over-blown imagining of something and decided to erect a new false idol to replace their old false idol.
The fact that these idolators have chosen to stamp the word Science on their alter, and have taken up the trappings of what they beleive to be science, and then fool other people who presume there exists congruence where "strong evidence" and "confidence" and "idology" into thinking that they "practice Science" is no real surprise. The average religious person could be sold a cheese sandwich as a religion if you knew exactly how to dress it up for their individual needs.
So there _are_ people who have made a religion out of "Science" and for that matter "Atheism" or "Rationality" but in neither case are these people actually engaged in these pursuits per se. The first hint is the capitalization. None of these terms are big-letter nouns. They are, when truthfully applied, little-letter labels for procedures.
Saying big-letter Science for reference to the scientific method, is like saying you "practice Dishes" because have washed your dishes out in the sink.
The scientific method produces scientific results. The method is (1) make your best guess; (2) figure out how many ways your guess could be wrong; (3) figure out if you can produce a procedure that can demonstrate any one of those ways; (4) execute that procedure; (5) if the procedure does prove your guess wrong go back to step one; (6) if your procedure fails to prove your guess wrong tell everybody to see if they can kill your guess by starting at step 2. (7) if nobody can come up with working disproof, presume your guess is right until someone _can_ come up with a disproof, then go to step 1.
See thats a process, not a state of being. And nothing ever gets "off the table" in science. The best theories are those that spend the longest time in step 7.
Thats it. The only "faith" involved is the sure and certain knowledge that if your guess has been at step seven long enough, there is some young turk out there who can totally make a name for himself by knocking it down. That is, there is a faith in human nature there, that someone will want to one-up you. That's right, just faith that someone eventually _will_ find a way to piss in your Cheerios. Its the ultimate game of king-of-the-mountain. And that's the best way we have found to-date to make sure that nothing is ever enshrined as "true".
The people who are full of religion just assume that everybody else has _something_ that feels the same to them. When they see someone who isn't filled with religion they are compelled to believe that person has some pursuit "in that mental slot". There is no real fault to this since many people "find science" as a new religion instead of actually engaging in any scientific pursuit whatsoever. There are so many of these souls that it becomes almost reasonable to believe that mistake is universal. But this is the result of confirmation bias. The faithful seek to confirm that everyone is adherent to some faith.
Here is the first clue: True Science(tm) never _proves_ anything. Really. NEVER PROVES ANYTHING. There is no such thing as "scientific proof". There is strong scientific evidence (e.g. a large body of exercises that end in step six) and so on.
That is also why it is so obvious and exasperating for any person of rational thought to deal with a religious person when that religious person conflates their religion with science. All those books and pundits which attempt to prove some religious point "scientifically". It literally cannot be done. Any attempt to prove anything is outside the scientific method, that is it is inherently unscientific.
This frustrates the scientist because its like having somebody come to a curling match with a book on american rules football and trying to prove the a sweeper was offsides. It just doesn't apply no matter how hard the outsider t
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Although the study is an interesting one, I dislike calling what people are presented with "scientific data". What people see are scientific theories. The most data they typically get is statistics, which are a minor subset of the data that's chosen to support the theory. Much of scientific research is flawed, as is often seen when research contradicts other research. It's incomplete becuase it's indeed very complicated, and must use approximations and models. That's not to say science is impotent, because these tools have self controls (which are sometimes even used), and science can use predictions to test theories. Still, people must make the distinction between data and theory, and realise that theory can be flawed.
Science is a tool, a methodology. It has no ideology, any more than a hammer or a matchstick has an ideology. That's not to say that proponents or practitioners can't have ideologies, but part of the design of science is to eliminate the biases by forcing methodological strictures on research. Science is all about the evidence, ideologies are all, so far as I can tell, about ego stroking.
Well, I think we're all misusing the word "ideology" here. Dictionary definition seems to say that it's just a systematic body of ideas that characterizes an individual or group... From that definition one could certainly say "science" is the ideology of "scientists"...
I think the argument was that some people accept science too blindly - and that surely is possible. The very nature of science is to explore ideas, and embrace the possibility that some of the ideas we embrace may be disproven. It is a rigorous process of building knowledge over generations, because the knowledge we generate as a race is too far-reaching to be fully explored by one person in one lifetime. But the fact that we're building this knowledge collaboratively, and over long periods of time, means we must accept, often as a matter of faith, that many of the investigations carried out by others or in the past were done so properly, and that the ideas are, as a result, at least somewhat reliable.
Of course, it's the same kind of trust we must place in any knowledge that comes from outside ourselves. I have heard that there exists a country called Turkey - I have seen in on maps and in history books - but I have no personal experience that confirms this. If you question everything you can't personally verify, it severely hinders your working relationship with the world. :) I think that placing one's trust in science is about the best one can do. It's the best information we have about how the world works, subject to the best discipline of verification. It's not infallible, but we're only human after all...
Bow-ties are cool.
Still, each story about a scientist gone astray increases the visibility of scientific fraud. Each story reinforces a negative view held by the public and destroys their trust in the scientific system. The potential implications are dire if the public--and therefore those who fund research--regard every scientist as a potential charlatan. Every scientist should therefore reinforce his or her commitment to avoid ignoring any data that do not fit the hypothesis. Honesty is the only weapon against fraud and against public mistrust, and it is available to everyone from technician to professor. We all need to make sure that it remains the dominant ethos in our laboratories.
In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91-19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.
As quoted from How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738
Scientists dont tell you to believe everything they say. They tell you to check the facts. Read through papers, ect. ect. Your are committing a fallacy. I.e. Something that changes equals un-truth whereas something static equals truth. Perhaps both are untrue. I am quite confident in saying Science approximates the truth, whereas religion totally fabricates it.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Most of so-called "Chinese Medicine" is complete bollocks. To paraphrase a line from "Storm" by Tim Minchin: "Do you know what they call Chinese medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."
HAND.
It is simple answer. First they do not see science and statements from scientists as the same thing. A scientist is someone with an opinion, ofcourse they just have an opinion, not like it is backed or anything. When it conflicts with what they way they disagree. But they love the new toys those same people make possible.
It is simple, because a scientist states God does not need to be part of my equation makes these god fearing idiots freak out. The smart god fearing peeps realize that they are not saying their god does not exist just that adding a god aspect to something means they are conveluting the science, as per the scientific method. (By christian beliefs god is everything or in everything, so you cannot isolate god)
God math:
God1 God+ God2 God= God3 vs. 1+2=3, hmm, well then.
Science is a method, not an end all be all.
I am in another category that if I don't understand the science I will question it, until it makes sense. I do not believe a scientist should be the end all be all, for instance Steven Hawkins may be smart for some things, but does he know anything at all about aliens? Why discovery channel asks him about alien life as apposed to someone that works for Seti is beyond me, but hey we can all speculate. As far as believe him, no, as far as it having anything to do with scientific process, not really, he has not spent him time researching aliens, so it is an opinion and nothing more.
As far as the freaks in Texas go, I say we stop sending them any technology that comes from anything that has roots in Darwin's theory, see how they feel about it after that when they can't get half the shit they use to survive and live life. Sciense is constantly under unwarrented attack all the time, I wish people would wake up and realize that God is philosophy and has no place is science, until we become advanced enough to seperate the gods from the particles.
people tend to look for the reality that they want to exist instead of looking for the reality that exists. emotions and feelings play a part in forming a persons world view. i frequently stop myself from correcting people's stupid beliefs. a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
it follows that a persons actions are based on their perception of reality and so, an accurate perception of reality will likely result in actions that are better focused on achieving the results that a person wants in life. so i try to be content with believing that i will likely live a better life than those with a more distorted perception of reality.
if i can't fix other people, i'll focus on improving myself, i guess.
Ah, the unsubstantiated words of a raving True Believer.
;)
Parent AC must be American by his own logic.
Unfortunately people hang onto established beliefs even when they are found to be untrue: thus, today's religions are out of harmony with science.
You are incorrect in your assertion.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Science and Faith are the opposites, not Belief. "Belief", alone, is too vague.
Science is about what we believe, based on our best available evidence. Faith is about what we believe, despite our best available evidence. New knowledge and ideas can cause upheavals in either, but with Science, the end goal is to find truth, not preserve it.
I agree with your sentiment, but not your vocabulary. You can be rational and not wise.
I already commented, so I can't mod you up, but you're right.
Scientists overstate their claims all the time. I am a peer reviewer for an international journal and this is one of the most common revisions I request of manuscript authors.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
What scientists mean to convey when they present a discovery :
We performed experiment A. Result B was obtained. We propose mechanism C to explain the findings.
What the media reports:
Scientists prove C!
What appears in the abstract:
In the last decade, there has been much interest in D. We have done something that relates only tangentially, but will pretend that it's relevant. To investigate D, we performed A with the result B. We propose that the findings can be explained by C, which is a critical step towards understanding D, building a quantum computers and curing cancer.
What the researchers say to each other:
Fuck yeah, we got B to agree with C (sort of)! Beers are on me! Now I can defend my thesis and I'll never have to see A again! We can probably put in something about D to try to get into a better journal.
The particular language used by each group is tailored to the audience. The immutable facts are that A was done and B was obtained; that's the science.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
Respectfully, I do not think so.
The link that you provided states that the Baha'i faith asserts the existence of a God who is the creator of all things. I certainly accept that science does not fully explain our existence, but I feel that it is not proven that an entity "created" the universe. Asserting that this is so puts a religion at odds with science, because science should only assert to be true what can be proven to be true, and allow for everything else to be unknown.
This isn't exactly new, isn't it the reason for the development of the scientific method?
Much of what TFA talks about sounds like confirmation bias (mixed with a little doublethink). This is a natural human trait to place more weight on something that confirms what we already thought, and we use it all the time is a useful rule of thumb that enables us to avoid wasting time - most of the time we were right all along, or at least conveniently wrong. An unfortunate by-product is that we rely too much on a small amount of assurance (considering something proven fact rather than merely an assumption that we've found some dubious support for). Secondly, we are both lazy and do not like to be wrong so are prone to not only biasing our little test sample but also of warping potentially conflicting results into something that either can be discounted or even confirms our fallacy (e.g. ad hominem - "that jerk denied it so it must be true").
People do this so extensively that if you pay attention to your communications you'll probably discover yourself manipulating what you say because you predict the behaviour and seek to counter or exploit it. Probably more subtly than can be seen on the average Slashdot submission though.
This is also a major issue with the internet where we can very easy find information to suit our predispositions, while the volume and general unreliability of information reinforces our willingness to discount anything that conflicts. That is why some people bemoan the death of newspapers where articles were long, informed and reliable enough to have a chance of convincing you of something using facts, logic and reason. Contrast to Digg.
But scientists *do* say these things for a number of reasons
And the corrolary here is that not everything scientists say is science. I heard one sneeze the other day, and I was--amazingly--able to not interpret it as a statement of science.
Unlike priests, scientists (the individuals) make no claims of infallibility. This, I think, is what gives people who don't understand science the most difficulty.
We have now figured out everything. Unlike 100 years ago, when some things science thought were true but turned out not to be.
In fact the further you go back, the more wrong scientists have turned out to be. The world's not flat. The universe is expanding.
Future generations will look back on us as the generation that finally figured everything out so they wouldn't have to.
I don't understand that field, and it's all hogwash anyway. Don't RTFA, it's just political propaganda!!
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it.
If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.
The origin of myths is explained in this way.
I appreciate what you say, but the cumulative effect is disastrous (also see the sibling reply to yours).
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Thanks for taking the time, much appreciated and much more interesting than a mod point.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
The fact is thought that populations don't understand statistics or probability at ALL. You tell somebody that second-hand smoke caused an extra 20 child deaths this year, and they go freaking out, banning smoking from all public locations. Then you try to explain how that isn't statistically significant and they look at you like you're insane. I guess having the exact numbers right there to tell people might help, but most are going to ignore the numbers.
All of this is just a more fundamental problem with our society. We need to teach children to question their lives, to think freely, and to be ready for things to change. Instead, we kill the desire to learn and peer pressure forces them to establish foundational beliefs that set them up to be wrong again and again, and whats worse, to defend the wrong answers rather than realizing errors and correcting.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
In other words, you think most people are stupid. You, of course, are smart.
The reality is that nobody is capable of objective self-examination of their own thought processes. That's why we have the scientific method, formalized education, peer review, psychotherapists, 12-step groups, clergypeople, etc.
In fact, smart people are better then others in maintaining beliefs contradicted by evidence. Example: William Shockley, Nobel Prize winner and co-inventor of solid-state logic (WTF would we be without that?), who made bad decisions about his personal life, who started businesses that had no hope of succeeding, and who spent the last part of his life propounding racial theories worthy of the most ignorant Nazi or Klansman. His brilliance facilitated his idiocies; anybody who tried to argue with him got cut off at the knees.
Example: Christopher McCandless, AKA Alexander Supertramp. Graduated from Emory with honors, refused an offer of membership in Phi Beta Kappa. Shared Shockley's ability to out-argue anybody in sight. Developed weird theories from reading too much mysticism, gave away his money and embarked on a hand-to-mouth existence that ended when he tried to hike from Anchorage to the Bering Strait without so much as a compass.
Example: Our own Pudge. People who tangle with him tend to dismiss him as a braindamaged wingnut, but I find his arguments to be cleverly constructed, if somewhat factually challenged.
What these folks lack is not intellectual skill but emotional maturity.
Pluto's original classification as a "planet" was NOT a mistake. All planets meet some definitions as what a planet is. Astronomers chose to change the definition of a planet, making Pluto something else.
This is a normal progression in science, not mistakes and fixes. A simple hypothesis is tested and revised as new knowledge arrives.
Darwin proposed that hereditary traits are passed from fit parents to offspring. The better the trait, the more likely the children will have their own children. We know know about DNA and genetics. We know how DNA can change to allow new traits over time, though sex and mutation. We also know that traits (genes) can be both both positive and negative at the same time. One African sickle cell gene is a benefit, but two is deadly.
Darwin's work is not considered a mistake today. It is just a simple way to explain modern genetics.
Another thought, after reading more about the Baha'i faith.
This religion appears to make a very noble attempt at seeking truth over dogma. I hope that my prior comment was not seen as disparaging. Please understand that I know little about Baha'i.
Nobody trusts scientists because they know it's a dumb career choice and they assume that naive dummies go into the sciences. They work harder and get low pay and boring jobs. Smart people go into finance and computers and law and stuff like that. You don't see scientist sites crushing servers with news updates like this site (a predominantly "computer-guy" site). It's because they're toiling away while armchair scientists run the world.
I want to blow your mind.
I grew up in a Christian environment, and the only way that I have found to avoid cognitive dissonance is to adopt the view that the universe is understandable. So I examine religious experience as a series of related phenomena.
A common form of religious experience involves groups of people gathering together to sing, and to listen to some appointed person that performs motivational-type monologues, often intertwined with narration. Extra-curricular study of religious texts is strongly encouraged, so the central memes are reinforced.
The human brain is divided into semi-symmetrical hemispheres, with the left usually being dominate with speech. Imagine the individual moving through environments that are either unsafe or safe, the organism defending itself or opening itself up for influence. The religious context is one of safety (or at least where the participants defenses are lowered), and I believe from a meme standpoint, also one of suggestibility (to use a computer metaphor, programmability). Split-brain observations (see Michael Gazzaniga or Roger Sperry) have given rise to Dual Brain Theory, so under this paradigm we might suppose that each hemisphere has a semi-separate emotional experience, and consequently different memories of those experiences. Interestingly, dolphins in the wild appear to alternate which hemisphere is sleeping/functioning, with conditions varying from safe (captivity- both hemispheres can sleep), to dangerous (swift current- rapid cycling of hemispheres). Now try and imagine Dissociative Identity Disorder and Schizophrenia within this model.
So, "god" exists, but is actually just the non-dominant hemisphere programmed in a religious environment. The great psychologist Julian Jaynes put together a fascinating theory in his influential The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, and it remains a classic in psychology more than three decades after its original publication. Religion would be an evolutionary adaptation to larger tribes, made possible by agriculture. And Jaynes' ideas would not seem so radical if the field of psychology kept within the same vein of understanding pioneered by William James and Dr. Bois Sidis (it was however sidetracked by followers of Freud, and later Skinner). One of his most important works was The Psychology of Suggestion (1898).
So, science is definitely not religion. And we need to figure this communication problem out very soon, because a "perfect storm" of crises is upon us and our old tricks of technologically accommodating a mentality that believes that useful energy is infinite or that growth is inherently good has come to an end. To grasp the historical significance of not coping adequately with this mentality, all one has to do is look at the great disasters of the 20th century, beginning with WWII.
So when it hasn't changed in 20+ years, like climate change, and people still deny it, then what? What should we call these people?
I think a part of it is that we're so used to hearing about all these "scientific breakthroughs" and "important discoveries" all the time. Every scientific article talks about the potentially life-changing applications of each little project, and by the time those developments take place, they're less spectacular (or less unusual, given today's society) than originally believed. I think another part of it is that so many scientists think their chosen fields are the most important. It does make sense that they would think so, given that they've devoted their careers (or entire lives) to the cause, but it sometimes seems to give their claims a sense of embellishment. After all, in how many ways have scientists predicted the end of the world? And of all those urgent warnings, how many have actually ended the world? Not counting the killer asteroids and alien invasions, of course.
important detail. scientists do say those things.
since you've provided no quantification, all it takes is a single example of a scientist to say those "types of things", and that qualifies the group.
and i'll tell you what, it's a lot more then one. it's a lot more then one out of a thousand.
i've worked as a sysadmin at various cancer research facilities, providing and supporting infrastructure, and i've dealt with and worked along side with countless biologists, oncologists, physicists, doctorates of all sorts of specialties, so many white lab coats and researchers i couldn't swing a dead shrodinger cat, without hitting one.
i don't know where slashdot masses get off on this most scientists are nearly vulcan in their logic ...that's rubbish.
if anything, the vanity, the politics, and everything else ugly in humanity, manifests itself in equal levels to the general population. In fact, if you want to know when a scientists is bullshitting you, just ask a single question outside of their ultra narrowly defined area of expertise, and all you need to know is if their lips are moving.
i happen to be an expert in network protocols, linux servers, four barrel ford carburetors, music, specifically the alto-sax, the guitar and the highland bag pipes, i'm proficient in sight reading...
and all i have to do is lead some unsuspecting researcher into a serious conversation in any of those areas, without letting on that I know anything about it, to get a good idea of how much bullshit these guys are capable of spewing.
then just listening to two of them, who are not familiar with each others fields, discuss their research ...I just shake my head.
scientists are useful.
but only just.
and they are as wrong as anyone else
Actually, the sun does go around the earth as much as the earth goes around the sun. All motion is relative.
Well, someone convinced the Pope that evolution was Gods plan, so you should just keep pushing your luck and you might just change someones mind.
And in any case, which is better... being absolutely firm and unchanging (but wrong), or admitting your errors switching to the truth?
What I find most interesting is that politicians are forced to always stick with the same views no matter how outdated or, frankly, wrong they might be.
If they do decide to change their mind due to new information, they get labeled as flipfloppers.
My brother's a polisci major and we got into a whole damned argument about this. I said that politicians who don't change their minds based on new data are just plain stupid. He said that a politician who does change his mind lacks solidarity and people wouldn't trust to vote him since, oh no! He might change his mind while in office!
Seriously, what the fuck politicians. What the fuck.
Neither do those who report on science. Scientists have always drawn overreaching conclusions, because they don't understand the limitations of their discipline. And *that* is because they don't realize all of the assumptions they make in order to get any "normal science" done. Philosophy of science is at least asking the right questions about the limitations of science, but there isn't even widespread agreement within that field. The fact remains that much of what science, and "science" (by which I mean the CCN version) tells us we should believe today will fall out of favor in 1, 10 or 100 years. Every generation has thought their science would endure forever. The only credible argument for that is going to be retrospective.
I'm wondering if the Dunning–Kruger effect may have anything to do with this. This mainly has to do with the fact that people's incompetence blinds them to the fact of their incompletence.
However, I've encountered people across all ranges of IQs who (myself included from time to time), at least for certain things, insist on being dogmatic in the face of reasonable counterevidence.
Of course, we don't want to take science as dogma either. Scientists are basically human beings, who make mistakes. We shouldn't just unquestioningly accept everything that comes out of the mouth of a scientist. On the other hand, if something has been peer-reviewed and withstood a far amount of scrutiny, it definitely worth taking seriously.
I think part of the problem is that many people have a hard time "believing" two contradictory ideas or at least seriously contemplating them at the same time. Unfortunately, this is frequently necessary in the face of incomplete information. Two ideas that seem mutually exclusive are each supported by some body of reasonable evidence.
Given that science is provably unprovable, who's rational to take it at face value?
That would indicate that the problem does not reside with the people who tend to disbelieve scientists. The problem is with the media and the relationship scientists have with it. And rather than wasting time studying and critiquing the behavior of people who disagree with scientists, the article should be studying and critiquing the media and how scientists interact with it.
When the media consistently distorts what you're saying to the point where it's detrimental to your credibility, you have a PR problem. Rather than getting upset at the symptom (the people who get their info from the media), scientists should be working on the problem (their dysfunctional relationship with the media). As I've gotten older, one thing I've come to realize is that the world won't automatically stop and take notice and shower you with praise just because you're right. You have to work to get your message out there, and fight to make sure the message is portrayed accurately. You can't expect the messenger (the media in this case) to do it for you. They're gonna do whatever is easiest for themselves, like everyone else does.
What you're describing is, I think, addressed succinctly by Asimov here: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Once an issue is politicized like this it ceases to be a question of truth and becomes a matter of identity.
I'd suggest that in an environment of social change where all things are hyper-political, personal identity is at the core, but it's much more convoluted than that:
Put crudely, the libertarian mob cries out "I know what I know and I don't need some scientist telling me anything different". If you listen carefully enough, you'll hear other groups (provocateurs, stake-holders, religeous fundamentalists, etc.) chanting along in harmony.
Sometimes the scientists themselves say "Now X is proven beyond a doubt, PANIC!". Scientists are not some kind of uber-menschen who are immune to human fallibilities. And science is not of universally good quality.
We have seen a couple of high profile scientific fraud cases from China recently, around genetics IIRC. A while back we saw a lot of bad science around cold fusion.
Scientists have beliefs, too, and sometimes their beliefs cloud their judgment wrt scientific matters. Sometimes their judgment/actions are subverted for more mundane reasons such as availability of funding for the latest scientific "fad".
And scientists and non-scientists alike are guilty of demanding sweeping social and economic changes based on studies that at best show correlation, not causation, and which are of varying degrees of quality. Of course the proponents will say that the "science" is unimpeachable, and they'll say it loudly and frequently, and they'll say that it's "settled", and use all sorts of other non-scientific rhetorical arguments to dismiss their opponents. Opponents will often personally attack the scientists involved, which overwhelms and undermines any legitimate concerns they had about the underlying study.
When there is no clear crisis, then it's a waste of time trying to convince people to CHANGE EVERYTHING, because they're just going to reject you and your justifications. This in turn diminishes the reputation of all science.
If you want science to regain its reputation, then you need to ruthlessly smack down anyone who tries to push for any kind of big change based on a crisis that they claim that they can support with scientific evidence. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you fall on. Science needs to stay out of the political fray.
1992:
Red Neck Bible Puncher (RNBP): "Do you believe in evolution?"
Me: "Do you believe in the sun?"
RNBP: "But... what are you talking about? One doesn't believe in the sun! It's.. it's just there!"
Me: "Precisely" and I walked away.
I am happy to say that W. is no longer a RNBP. We still have contact and he loves telling that story.
And in any case, which is better... being absolutely firm and unchanging (but wrong), or admitting your errors switching to the truth?
While the scientific *facts* involved may not change, the quality of our evidence that points to the *facts* certainly does. Because at least 99.99% of the scientists are people that I've never met, the majority of the research that I hear filters through some sort of media coverage of their work. Especially if the research is relevant to daily life or important to normal human beings in some way, I *can* trust that someone reporting on it has an agenda, and that agenda doesn't align with my own. So even if I jump to the conclusion that their methodologies are scientifically sound (which they usually aren't), I can trust that someone along the chain of getting that information distributed is trying to manipulate me.
Thus, I am a skeptic. So, when the next fad diet based on scientific research comes out, excuse me if I trust my gut (pun intended) which tells me that a plain, ordinary diet of a variety of foods all in moderation will serve me better than this new scientific methodology which likely will be proven wrong in a matter of years.
Likewise, if I, by watching the news, know that our best meteorologists often can't tell if it will rain tomorrow or not, if I choose not to believe that we are smart enough as a race to 'prove' that anthopogenic global climate change exists. My 'gut' tells me we just haven't been measuring anything with any consistency long enough to determine whether the Earth is warming or cooling, and we understand the variables that impact climate change even less, and we understand our impact on those variables even less than that.
I have complete confidence that such a model exists, but we understand it about as much as Columbus understood the shape of the earth when he left Spain. We may have hit land, but it's premature to call the people we meet 'Indians'.
> First off, lets talk about pluto. There are no new "facts" here, just a standardization of definitions. There was a time when "planet" meant "anything big orbiting the sun". When it turned out there were millions of big things orbiting the sun, scientists needed to decide just how big a thing had to be. The only two serious options were one that would increase the number of planets immediately to 12 and probably upwards of 40 eventually, and one that would reduce the number of planets to 8 and probably leave it there.
You also seem to have gotten the science rather wrong. It's not a case of setting a limit on the size of the planet. As scientists we shouldn't just be picking arbitrary numbers out of a hat.
A planet was clearly defined in 2006: "A celestial body that is (a) in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit."
Pluto failed the 3rd point and so has become a dwarf planet.
> And the idea that new science can come along and just yank away your most basic beliefs at any time is just too much for most common folk to bear.
Common folk, nothing. Just try talking to the people who had to scrap grant proposals when that guy proved that fusion reactor designs that don't generate neutrons won't generate energy, either...
Nonsense.
Religious "facts" change every time you ask someone new, and for that matter depending on what day you ask a given person.
Scientists, on the other hand, make a point of keeping detailed records of their assumptions, data, methods, and conclusions so that you have some chance of figuring out where you stand if conflicting data comes along or if it turns out you made a mistake or did something inconsistent. Scientific "facts" change much less frequently than analogous structures in religious belief systems. But ideally we don't try to bollocks our way out of admitting that we were wrong earlier. And we try to keep records and perform follow-up sufficient to determine what went wrong where and how we can use this knowledge to improve future results.
And I keep putting facts in quotes because it's a very dodgy word. If we look at it as elements of knowledge or belief - these things are not at all the same in religious and scientific contexts. It would make life far less confusing if people quit assuming that any "belief source" is essentially equivalent. This is like saying that since any "food source" makes you stop being hungry, a cow must be the same thing as a piece of seaweed.
Two things:
First, society as a whole (scientists and non-scientists alike) have a very difficult time separating fact from conclusions drawn from those facts. When I see folks disregard something a scientist says, it is usually because the scientist has touted conclusion as fact. This isn't difficult to spot- most halfway intelligent people have a fairly good BS meter. I would posit that it is possible to detect and call out BS without a predetermined ideology being involved. The bias, if there is one, is that those who have an opposing ideological position are much more likely to make a stink about their objection.
Secondly, we have set up science to be a system of patronage.
Who teaches you in the university determines your initial ideological positions and career advancement.
Who funds your research in the field determines your continued ideological positions and career advancement.
Even if a scientist doesn't have an ideological bone to pick, their patron sure does. As a scientist, you aren't paid a salary to prove your patron wrong.
This is hardly a secret. I think it is a positive thing that intelligent non-scientists understand this and therefore take everything a scientist says with a grain of salt.
How about: Science is a continuous process of discovering facts and approximating models to fit facts.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
We keep a list of the terrorists, how hard can it be to keep a list of the idiots.
Ok – longer list, but still just a list.
Terrorist can't travel by plane, idiots should be kept from making anything someone else may depend on.
problem solved – twofers are pure bonus.
> And in any case, which is better... being absolutely firm and unchanging (but wrong), or admitting your errors switching to the truth?
Come on, he left office 16 months ago...
Great points! I have always found the most satisfying part about being rational is that I don't have that awful feeling of going into a discussion unable to change my mind. You see it a lot when people aren't going to be convinced by any evidence and the cogs start spinning trying to find some way to place this new information in order without changing their original position.
Rational people can simply decide "hmm, I think you have a point. OK, you convinced me and I have changed my mind."
It must be dreadfully stressful going through life thinking all of your current opinions are necessarily true and all new information must fit in or be rejected.
I second your recommendation of that article. It's excellent.
Rational thought requires an open mind. Anyone that rarely changes their story probably rarely thinks about what they're saying.
AC
Point of interest, you'd probably have an easy time convincing a creationist that Buddha buried T-Rex; in my experience, the religious tend to circle wagons when confronted by science. They'd just say that Jeezus was wearing a Buddha mask at the time. You can pull the same stunt to get them to swallow science, sometimes. Just tell them that natural selection is how Goddunit. Hell, if they have to believe it was all set moving in situ 6,000 years ago, fine, whatever, as long as they recognize it continues to move today. Heck, throw it back on them; wouldn't it make sense for their perfect God create a completely consistent fossil record, one that would continue to offer insights into future events? He's perfect, RIGHT?
The solution to all of this (IMO, of course) is to get philosophy and logic into the classroom, the earlier the better. I'd start with simplified logic in grade school, and try to get the ball rolling on basic ethics sometime before high school. Once people realize morality doesn't require magic, one BIG source of cognitive defense falls down. The next one falls when they realize how arbitrary religious pronouncements really are. Now, if only our childrens' educators were capable of teaching logic...
I understand completely, I was unaware of the sect until I was in my mid 20s. I took a world religions class and Baha'i was one of the faiths that we covered. Though I do not share their beliefs, I respect their balance of tradition and modernity.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I see your argument, but... the "goes around" phenomenon is the Earth-Sun system's effect on the Earth, not its effect on the Sun. Its effect on the Sun is "wobbles imperceptibly". :)
Though I'm sure that's unconvincing if you're seriously arguing
(This is not in reply only to you in particular, but also to many other posts on similar topics in this thread.)
Many religious people make the argument (as this topic is all about) that certain subjects are not within the domain of science, that science doesn't answer those kinds of questions; and then, they assert that religion does answer those kinds of questions. The usual subject they make this claim about is morality or ethics. They say science only tells of about what IS or IS NOT, and says nothing at all about what OUGHT or OUGHT NOT to be. They then assert that religion is all about what ought or ought not to be, and so as long as science sticks to the "is" and religion sticks to the "ought", they can all get along just fine managing their respective domains.
Then others argue, as you do, that science can very well answer "ought" questions, and they usually follow up by noting that religion hardly restricts itself to assertions of "ought", but makes plenty of claims about what "is" too. They argue that the difference between science and religion is not about what kinds of questions they try to answer, but with how they go about answering them and the kind of justification they provide for those answers; that it's a difference of methodology, not of subject matter.
I am inclined to agree quite strongly on the point that religion is defined by its methodology and not it's subject matter, however, I also think the religionists have a good point about moral or ethical questions being outside the domain of science. But this does not mean that I think the religious methodology is the appropriate way to answer those kinds of questions.
I am a strong supporter of the "is"/"ought" or "fact"/"value" distinction, most famously articulated by David Hume, and I believe that scientifically-based attempts to answer ethical or moral questions, such as those you suggested, commit something like what G.E. Moore called the "naturalistic fallacy". You can pull out all the good, rigorous, well-done science you want, to show that THIS IS the case and THAT IS the case and that IF THIS IS the case THEN THAT IS the case, all these facts and relations between facts -- and certainly facts are highly relevant when making decisions of any kind -- but someone can always reply to your facts, even if they believe them thoroughly, with "so? why is that good?", or "why is that bad?" or "why should I care about that?". Science cannot, by itself, tell us what we should value; it can at best tell us what people DO value, or point out the consequences of things in an attempt to appeal to values we already hold. But science is not in the business of telling us what ought to be: it only tells us what is.
And that's not something that will be "fixed" eventually as new scientific fields develop and better data is collected and better theories formulated, because that is not the kind of question that science even tries to answer. And that's fine. It's not a shortcoming of science, it's not a fault, and it's not a problem, any more than my kitchen sink is faulty for not also cooking toast: it's not supposed to, and trying to use it to do so would be a backward, ugly hack that just wouldn't work at all, no matter how much steaming hot soggy bread it produced in the end.
But that doesn't mean I think that religion holds the answers to moral or ethical questions. Religion is defined by it's methodology. It's not just a belief in a god; if that were the definition, then Buddhism wouldn't count as a religion. It's not just "moral belief"; religions make plenty of factual, non-moral claims, and plenty of people make moral claims on completely irreligious (and yet not, strictly speaking, "scientific" either) grounds. If religion has any definition at all, besides some vacuous "those who identify as religious are religious" sociological one, then the defining characteristic of religion is faith. I mean that word in the sense of the absence of critical thinking, not the absence of pointlessly skeptical thinking. By the lat
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
...it reinforces my belief about common people with scientific facts ! yay !
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
"I completely understand why many people aren't as quick to believe everything scientists say. Simply because scientific -fact- seems to change every few years."
One of the biggest problems is that we have far too many areas of "research", in which the purported scientists are engaged in political advocacy, rather than actual science.
Global warming, for example, or the anti-gun researchers in the public health area. In both of these, the leading "researchers" have taken an a-priori political position, and have let that influence how they report their findings.
As a result of which, whatever truth may have underlaid their claims is entirely lost.
It's about being aware of "science falsely so-called." 1) "Scientists" have been wrong before, many times. Folks prefer to withhold acceptance of claims merely to avoid be tricked into believing a guy who ends up being wrong ten years later. 2) I've read many scientific articles, and too many of them blithely ignore the other explanation, the other hypothesis, in favor of their pet theory. Their pet theory isn't "proved" any more than another hypothesis is disproved. The "scientist" merely ran a poorly-designed experiment.
Cranky educator.
Science routinely makes new discoveries that contradict or invalidate old data. Keeping up require setting aside the time to read and understand all the relevant research. If the research is not personally or professionally relevant to me, this becomes more trouble than it's worth. So in most areas, I choose to believe whatever makes most sense to me, and disregard scientific data. If I'm ever in a position where my opinion/belief about something actually matters, then I take the time to actually do some homework. I don't see anything wrong with that; I'm much more appalled by the ridiculous notion that every layman should know all the latest scientific point of views and agree with it.
I'd have just as much luck convincing a creationist that Buddha put the bones there as I would getting them to accept evolution through natural selection.
Not sure if you are aware of this, but for the record - Buddhism is not opposed to natural selection. Buddhism is not history centric so it is not fundamentally based on what has happened in the past.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
It's about control. Science says that the facts rule, not opinions, or beliefs. If facts rule, then many people fear their power is diminished. Also many people are impatient. They prefer an authoritative sound bite, to the details and the logic.
If pragmatism isn't an ideology, what the hell it is?
Rethinking email
The problem is that scientists will call you ignorant or stupid if you stop believing every word they say just because you know there's a good chance of them saying something different in a short while.
No, they don't. They only start using terms like that if you engage in an active campaign to interfere with their work and research.
Religion on the other hand, rarely changes its story.
Which would make it great for rocks, mountains, and other objects that rarely change if it were true. But it's not. Religion is ALWAYS changing its story. It does so at a slower rate than science, but nevertheless it changes through time. For example, how many branches of Christianity are there?
~X~
If it were truley imperceptible we wouldn't know of many exoplanets. Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving, revolving at 900 miles per hour...
You have marked a boundary that truly separates reality into truth or falsity. That which appeals to desire to understand the truth & that that appeals to the laws subjugated by religiosity. Religious values by default whilst they claim truth belie the ignorance of truth by faith & ignore reality & real truth, or that that is to be discovered as opposed to that that is by faith alone. Whilst the truth may exist within that moment of faith in the longer endured path this faith will be at odds with truth.
People's understanding of issues is heavily determined by how they are framed. The frame sets the questions, which in turn point to the answers...Once an issue is politicized like this it ceases to be a question of truth and becomes a matter of identity
Posts like this one make me wish that scores could be modded up to +6
Time and time again, I get sucked into the debate, without noticing that the way the whole issue has been framed is what is really at fault.
-I only code in BASIC.-
We're all guilty of confirmation bias. It's a well known effect. Nothing new here...