Slashdot Mirror
Those Opposed To Scientific Consensus Bolstered By 'Illusion of Knowledge' (edmontonjournal.com)
The Edmonton Journal reports:
Recently, researchers asked more than 2,000 American and European adults their thoughts about genetically modified foods. They also asked them how much they thought they understood about GM foods, and a series of 15 true-false questions to test how much they actually knew about genetics and science in general. The researchers were interested in studying a perverse human phenomenon: People tend to be lousy judges of how much they know. Across four studies conducted in three countries -- the U.S., France and Germany -- the researchers found that extreme opponents of genetically modified foods "display a lack of insight into how much they know." They know the least, but think they know the most. "The less people know," the authors conclude, "the more opposed they are to the scientific consensus."
Science communicators have made concerted efforts to educate the public with an eye to bringing their attitudes in line with the experts," they write in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. But people with an inflated sense of what they actually know -- and most in need of education -- are also the ones least likely to be open to new information.... Extreme views often come along with not appreciating the complexity of the subject -- "not realizing how much there is to know," said Philip Fernbach, lead author of the new study and a professor of marketing at the University of Colorado Boulder. "People who don't know very much think they know a lot, and that is the basis for their extreme views."
Slashdot reader Layzej links to Rational Wiki's article on "The Backfire Effect," to illustrate Fernbach's observation that "People double down on their 'counter-scientific consensus attitudes'.
"Epecially when people feel threatened or if they are being treated as if they are stupid."
Science communicators have made concerted efforts to educate the public with an eye to bringing their attitudes in line with the experts," they write in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. But people with an inflated sense of what they actually know -- and most in need of education -- are also the ones least likely to be open to new information.... Extreme views often come along with not appreciating the complexity of the subject -- "not realizing how much there is to know," said Philip Fernbach, lead author of the new study and a professor of marketing at the University of Colorado Boulder. "People who don't know very much think they know a lot, and that is the basis for their extreme views."
Slashdot reader Layzej links to Rational Wiki's article on "The Backfire Effect," to illustrate Fernbach's observation that "People double down on their 'counter-scientific consensus attitudes'.
"Epecially when people feel threatened or if they are being treated as if they are stupid."
Duh!
(by the way, First Post!)
Unfortunately the "experts" sometimes have a financial incentive to "know" what they claim is true. Therefore you have people disregarding consensus. Companies spend millions on "experts" who will tell you GM crops are perfectly fine. They might be right, or they might be lying.
That was my first thought too. You misspelled Kruger and could have added a link but otherwise, you basically said all there is to say to this.
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
Take a cheat of paper and a pencil ...
Draw a box, draw a box around it.
Put some labels inside: inner box "stuff you know that you know it", outer box "stuff you know that you don't know", rest of the paper "stuff you don't know about that you don't know".
The inner box would e.g. be your native language, the outer box would be "you know there are other languages, but you speak none or know their names", or "you don't know angels blood type" ... the rest of the paper is the "unknown unknown" ... things you have no glimpse about that anyone else knows anything about it. Imagine a thousand year ago living person not knowing anything about fusion ... and suns and stars.
Actually I would like to see the list of questions and the rational why they ask about GMOs ... looks more like a black ops of pro GMO activists/lobbyists than a scientific study about self presumed knowledge.
If you wanted to make a study about "self presumed knowledge" you would use 100 to 1000 questions about different topics of science and nature ... or even politics and arts and sports.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There's lots of books in libraries and stores bringing them up to speed. It's their reliance on televengelists that's keeping them ignorant.
Freeman Dyson is opposed to the politicized "global climate change" consensus. "the model are rubbish" And Freeman Dyson is smarter than you are.
Those most invested in promoting it are the most economically invested in its success.
The article was even posted "from the Dunning-Kreuger dept", which is probably where that misspelling came from.
If you are.using an E to add to the sound of U that is represented by the German umlaut, the E goes after the U. Krueger would not have been wrong. Krueger is a valid spelling of the last name, however Krüger IS most correct.
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
John P. A. Ioannidis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Further reading:
"There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias".
- Dr John Ioannidis (“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”) August 30, 2005 http://journals.plos.org/plosm...
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine".
- Dr. Marcia Angell, New York Review of Books January 15, 2009. http://www.nybooks.com/article...
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness".
- Richard Horton, Editor, “The Lancet” April 11th 2015 http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/...
"Scientists these days, especially but not only in such blatantly corrupt fields as pharmaceutical research, face a lose-lose choice between basing their own investigations on invalid studies, on the one hand, or having to distrust any experimental results they don’t replicate themselves, on the other. Meanwhile the consumers of the products of scientific research—yes, that would be all of us—have to contend with the fact that we have no way of knowing whether any given claim about the result of research is the product of valid science or not".
- John Michael Greer
http://thearchdruidreport.blog...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Article summarized:
Smug fake-science Monsanto shills sneer "nah nah, you're a stupid-pants!!" at everyone who doesn't want to poison themselves and damage the environment with dangerous frankenfoods
They have never been wrong, not ONCE!
If they say it is so and that it is safe we can trust that 100%, history has proven that. This is not mere mortal we are talking about, these people are scientists!
Come on, slashdot. One has to follow a link /twice/ to find out who these "researchers" are. Turns out that publication has appeared in nature [1], which is a reputable source (paywalled, alas). Slashdot, you can better than just regurgitate this "researchers".
That's one of the reasons general public distrusts "science", you know? Stop being part of the problem!
The problem with this world is that wise people are full of doubt, and dumbasses are full of confidence.
Interesting that you draw that conclusion from their paper. Are you by any chance self-identifying with the "dumbass redneck white pieces of trash"?
There are a LOT of people all over North America that have problems with wheat.
If they go somewhere like France (where it is Illegal to grow/use GMO wheat) they can eat anything, but the moment they get home, the problems start again.
-
If the wheat is modified to be "resistant to bugs" so that the bugs can no longer eat it, what makes the engineers think it's still food for humans?
Is it little wonder that so many people are having trouble processing wheat (or other GMO foods)?
There are so many sources on Youtube alone (yes, I know, that's not the best source, but come on!) that detail what Monsanto has done to promote the use of their products while grinding the competition into the turf, that there's a true monopoly out there.
Feel free to Google it for yourselves!
Trump is a genius.
I don't trust neonicotinoids because scientists were suppressed by corporations. Call me old-fashioned but I don't trust ignorance and I don't trust those who promote it. The experts were abused, trolled and hounded. That doesn't tell me the experts were right, but it sure as hell gives me cause for concern about the corporations. Particularly as the corporations prefer ignorance, trade secrets and suppression of data.
If we are to hold experts as different from non-experts, then I must regard scientists who do the leg-work as more credible than bean-counters and snotty executives.
In the case of GMO, the same holds true. I cannot be certain an expert will be right, but they're more likely to be right.
What do the experts say? Well, in Europe (where the experts are actually expert and therefore worth listening to), GMO is banned by scientific advice.
Why not American scientists? Well, let's take something that isn't controversial. Bleached chicken. We now know chlorinating chicken doesn't kill salmonella or other pathogens, all it does is stop any existing methods from detecting salmonella. Studies show American chicken is extremely unsafe and unsanitary because it is bleached.
This should have been spotted very quickly in America, since it is their practice and all scientists are raised from hatchling (what, you thought scientists were human?) to listen to the Precautionary Principle.
So, no, I do not regard Americans as experts.
But that's ok. If there's something real, it'll be spotted by the EU, Russia, China, India or Africa, all places with scientific traditions. China's is perhaps the oldest, although they took a rest for a bit. If it's important, they'll notice and publish. I don't have to listen to one specific group. If it isn't replicated, or can't be, then it's not worth me paying attention to. If EU scientists don't trust the results, then they're experts and I listen to experts.
Is GMO food actually harmful? There's no proof of that. The precautionary principle doesn't require that there's proof of harm, it requires that you don't do anything if you don't understand the risks. Since it is applied here, it follows that a very large body of highly credible experts say that the risks aren't adequately understood to the standards expected by their profession.
GMO research is therefore substandard. There may be no risks at all, but the research isn't there.
Is it inherently harmful? Of course not! Horizontal gene transfers are remarkably common, albeit usually not from squid to pigs. I daresay that happens occasionally, though.
But it's only with CAS9 that they've been able to GMO humans to cure genetic diseases without an unacceptable cancer risk. Early retroviral inserts were more troublesome. Ergo, I would need to know the expert opinion on different generations of GMO food.
I don't see any problem with this. Ask an expert about a specific generation of GMO, not about GMO in the abstract. GMO in the abstract is safe, GMO in a specific formulation isn't necessarily and there may not be the data.
Should we put blind faith in GMO? With the myriad of techniques and the refusal of EU scientists to approve it, I'd say no. Blind faith in a specific technique, that's not so unreasonable, if EU scientists think it is safe.
Pesticide-enhanced crops? No, that's stupid. You're making resistant insects and killing off the beneficial wildlife. We know that. And most create pesticides either banned or temporarily halted prior to a ban due to the incompetence of the formula and the extreme damage to the environment.
Drought-resistant crops? If the EU scientists say it's ok, then ok.
Although, frankly, we massively overproduce food and America has a massive obesity problem. Reducing farmland to an absolute minimum and re-wilding the relinquished land would go a long way to improving health globally.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
As much as I welcome this study, it didn't really ask the right questions and unfortunately kind of insinuates that knowledge of GM technology is the most important factor in judging whether GM food should be allowed. That's not true in general, my arguments against GM food have almost nothing to do with the way the genetic modifications work or with direct environmental impacts, they are political and philosophical. I'm pretty sure others have similar doubts.
The philosophical argument is a bit complex, involving several steps and premises. First, there is not much doubt that in the far future humans will drastically modify species including their own, given that almost every technology that has ever been invented has been used. Second, nevertheless it seems possible to kind of limit the impact of technologies, as for example the bans against nuclear proliferation show. Not every nation has nuclear weapons -- at least not yet, and that seems a good thing. Third, the larger the possible negative and positive long-term consequences of new technologies, the more you will need to err on the side of caution. (Technically, this could mean that you should use possibility theory instead of Expected Utility principles, for example.) Fourth, the more a technology is accepted and used in a society for one purpose, the more likely it will also be accepted and used for other purposes. Once GM food is ubiquitous, maybe animals will be modified next, and then humans, and so forth. I'm not claiming that there is an inevitable slippery slope, but some caution seems advisable. Fifth, human history has shown so far that humans are incapable of judging the very long-term impacts of technologies correctly. Both the net positive and net negative effects are blatantly misjudged once we're talking about time spans of 100-200 years. If you combine all those points, especially the third and fifth, then it seems that not being too liberal about GM technology and thinking this through in a bit more detail could be advisable. You certainly don't only want geneticists specializing in GM food in your expert panels for evaluating the technology. At the very least, we should perhaps delay or restrict technologies with a potential to have a high impact on the ecological system in the light of point five and point four. Again, the claim is not that a slippery slope is inevitable, but point five is still something to take into account. It's naive and irresponsible to make this a debate about "GM food" only.
The political point is simpler. The corporations who most fervently lobby for GM food have a proven history of not necessarily having the best interests of their consumers in mind, neither the interests of farmers nor those of end consumers, and have in the past been involved in all kinds of shady business about pesticides, seeds that make farmers dependent on the company, aggressive lawsuits against customers and aggressive patent policies, and so on. They also are lobbying very intensively against labelling GM food, even though there is almost no sane reason against such a requirements. In fact, their attempts to explain this rationale are mostly ridiculous despite the fact that they spend so much money on P&R. For example, they frequently argue that "there is not enough space on the packaging". In reality, their motivations are purely economical, they want to ensure that in mass production GM modified and non-GM-modified resources can be freely mixed in order to save costs. This is only a benefit to large food corporations, of course, who destroy smaller farmers and companies by sheer numbers. Irrespectively of the more philosophical worries, this alone should give you reason to think twice. Do you want no mandatory labelling, no free consumer choice, and instead laws that favour large corporations with a shady past? Do you wish to support Nestle and Bayer instead of local farming? Then maybe you should politically support GM food. If not, if you think that large food corporations are not necessarily the best choice for consumers
There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA), homosexuality was a mental disease. and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth—all of which proved false.
Science, Richard Feyman once said, is “the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Scientists today purport to tell us how the world works, just as yesterday's high priests did. Those without means to directly confirm what is said (the majority of us), need to take their word for it.
Of course today's scientists support their contentions with data, facts etc. which supposedly were collected without any bias; just like yesterday's priests supported their contentions with "evidence" collected (charred stuff, etc.).
Finally today's Scientists corroborate each other's findings, just as yesterday's priests did.
Unfortunately, just as yesterday, there are Scientists today that skew stuff for their own interests and muddy the waters, and too many of the unwashed masses are willing to follow them.
All in all I will still take today's scientists over yesterday's (or today's) priests, but I do have to keep an open mind to figure out if what they are saying is truly the way things work, or if they are just guessing to give themselves a name.
TFA points out how people can cherry pick the information they want to believe and then call themselves experts on a subject.
Unfortunately I don't see a way to fix this....
'consensus' has no place in science. A scientific fact does not care whether 1 or 1 billion so called scientists believe it. Even fundamental scientific 'facts' need to be reevaluated and questioned all the time with no emotion or attachment either way. Beyond that is proselytizing your religion. It might not be so bad when the scientific consensus is that GMOs are harmless but how long will it be till the 'scientific' consensus is that biological sex is now known as gender and is an illusion that doesn't matter but there are definitely 59 of them at least and you better believe in them to be a tolerant person otherwise we'll destroy your livelihood?
Yes, if you disagree with the scientific consensus, then you will get a lot of facts wrong (which are based on scientific consensus - or at least science). It's like saying flat earthers get the question about the earth being round wrong. This may be true, but you could have deducted this without doing any research as it's a tautology.
Science is now heavily for-profit. So much so there is widespread corruption in every industry. (even materials science)
The corruption won't die off until the entire thing is socialized.
Good fucking luck getting that to happen in todays climate. Bunch of retards that think "hurr durr socialisms are baaad mmkay" then go to their socialist hospital and get socialist healthcare while driving on their socialist roads.
There is no one model that works. None of them. Every country of significance uses mixed models to varying degrees of success. (ironically, US and UK are the worst, the ones heavily against it despite having HUEG social states created through corruption from the capitalist side run amok)
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” Stephen Hawking
Then again, maybe he repeated some other quote he read and I'm now victim of the illusion of knowledge myself?
As someone that follows a scientific heretical group like the Electric Universe (Thunderbolts Project) and SAFIRE Project, this article can go to hell. Sometimes, the group can not only be wrong, but dogmatically wrong. SAFIRE is the only scientific group that has successfully replicated many of the features observed on the Sun. This would never have been possible if they followed conventional models which are disastrously wrong. SAFIRE is closer to understanding the real physics of the sun than multi-billion dollar projects like ITER. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein.
A real scientist doesn't even give a shit about "experts". Experts can be (and have been) wrong. No scientist should "believe" any other scientist. Show me the EXPERIMENT, show me the DATA, and let me reproduce it for myself. Then we'll talk about whether we agree or not. All of this "belief" in science or in studies or in experts is absolutely contrary to the scientific method which MANDATES reproducible experimental results. Failure of this model, which is what we have now, lets us believe in charlatan "experts" and bogus agenda driven "studies" which no one either has the time or money to reproduce, and be led down a path that's not necessarily the TRUTH - which is what science ultimately looks for.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I just trust the people that decide what to modify and how not at all. First, they will not have the best interest of the consumer at heart, they will want to maximize profits and, if they can, make people as dependent on _their_ product as they can. So the incentives are already utterly perverted. Second, they will not care about long-term environmental impact, they will care about short-term profits. With the power of modification that comes with GM, that could cause huge disasters that society (not those causing them) will then have to pay for. Now, I know that it is hard to cause such disasters. Most dangerous stuff is not viable in the field. Most modifications are small. But it just takes one instance (e.g. by a bad actor desperately trying to get rich) and we are screwed.
With that, I am very much opposed to GM food production (not research) at this time. Incidentally, this is also my main objection to the nuclear-industrial complex. It is not the tech, it is the people I have a problem with.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Of course the opposition to GMO is in large part an argument about whaet scientists don't know and the limits to their knowledge that they don't recognize.
I am also not sure what statistical studies tell us about the actual merits of the discussion. Some people are ignorant, they don't recognize it and oppose GMO. So what? That tells us nothing about the actual merits of their position, it is essentially just an ad-hominen argument. There are plenty of people who are not ignorant, recognize the limits of their knowledge and oppose GMO.
"In one of their studies, 91 per cent of 1,000 American adults surveyed reported some level of opposition to GM foods." By WHY are they opposed? Are all forms of opposition to GM foods the same, and due to lack of science knowledge? The "rural" people I know are opposed to GMOs, not because of some perception that the food itself is unsafe, but because of how they experience the legality and economics of the ways the patents and intellectual property are enforced and regulated -- that these are bad for farmers. When you hear about the evils of Monsanto (try Google*), you don't find as much about "GMO seeds are teh evil" per se, but that the requirements, the fees, the lock-you-into-a-contract stuff is deeply problematic. Thus one could indeed be fairly ignorant about genetics but well-informed about these economic and regulatory issues, and still have a reasonable justification for opposition to GMOs. It really depends on how these researchers asked their questions, and I can't find a link to the questions in TFA. *Although this is a highly-contested area of internet space, with misinformation, sock-puppet accounts and more. So I'm not including any citations because the point is not whether these are correct, just whether the conversation re. opposition to GMOs is really about them being unhealthy vs. GMO-company economics being unhealthy. (edit: why has /. removed my newline breaks?)
English speaking people tend to misspell certain German digraphs by swapping the letters, for example ie (writing weiner instead of wiener) or ue (Kreuger instead of Krueger). I have no idea why, though.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Krueger would be wrong, because that person already chose Kruger as the anglicization.
I'm waiting for the study that shows matter is made of atoms. People want to know!
When someone says "they are the professionals" or "I am the professional" ignore them. They have nothing intelligent to say. Everyone is a human and they have the same problem... wanting to be right regardless of the outcome of the argument to get there.
First is the gate-keeping... the idea that if you are not credentialed in some way to speak on the subject then your input is not valid.
Next comes the Sheeplism... if you say something that is not "group-think" approved then you must be marginalized or discredited.
Then comes the Closed-Loop problem. The same people teaching the subject only pass or certify the people that believe in the subject in the "proscribed" way leading to in-the-box thinking where thought conformity is encouraged more than the goal of knowledge transfer or individual creative thought. It leads to mono-idealism where at best only one or two camps of anything can exist because there is no support for a 3rd since you are not allow to have your own opinions and will be over-powered by the already present non-thinking larger group of idiots.
And just like this article... Being opposed to scientific consensus makes you an idiot. Well, that in and of instead only reveals the moron writing this article is the biggest fucking moron. There has been more than enough scientific consensus that were wrong. In fact many "famous" scientists have spoken at length about problems like this and having to face it down in their professional careers. The endless cacophony of people seriously affected by the illusions of their own superiority calling out people that are actually more correct than them as morons.
This reads like an attack piece. Truth deosn't care what you believe, nor how many people believe or not. Framing it this way, as though D-K is a valid reason for any belief, only tries to call people that don't agree stupid, which itself is pretty stupid. Therefore, I have no interest in what the author is trying to convince me of.
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
It has blood on it!
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
Nothing else needs to be said.
Describe reproducible results or GTFO.
It's also notable that they have knowledge that Dunning-Krueger *is* a thing.
Accurately describing how your detractors would react even *before* they start doing it is the best way of discounting anything they have to say. You *knew* they would, so you're smarter than them by default, right?
It's really just a way of psychologically profiling people ahead of time to make yourself sound reasonable: better to be the one who calls the behaviour out first because it gives your information the ring of truth just for knowing human psychology.
So it could go either way. The base truth is: an average person knows next to nothing about GMO foods and at worst the patents on them are designed to control the food supply and trade of poorer nations.
If a GMO food is patented, it ultimately doesn't matter if it can even feed people in 50C+ equatorial weather. If you're forbidden to collect seeds from the patented crops or are forced to use terminator seeds, you can't control what you feed to others in your nation and a multinational corporation has control of farmers.
We have too many "scientists" in the publish-or-perish rat race, and little if any actual scientific finding going on.
How about we get rid of at least half the universities, cut the other half to half size each, and make it way the fuck harder to get in, and to graduate. Oh, and invalidate all degrees earned in the last thirty or so years, barring verified research results. Meaning most people with degrees will have to re-earn them, or get vocational training instead. Lucky coincidence: We have a severe shortage of people with vocational training.
Would ignore Occam's razor and say that any lack of knowledge would simply be a failure to agree with established observational science. In other words, you can't win with these types. If you say you're wrong because you didn't learn something, they'll just declare that something is part of your conspiracy to fool them. Someone must be pretty naive and unknowing themselves to even think anything else, or that they'd change anything like that with this study.
You can't fix stupid. You really can't fix wilfully stupid.
I'm not going to comment on GM Foods, because it's unimportant for the argument made by these researchers. Anyone can be made to look a fool if you ask them "how much do you know about X", and then ask them a bunch of questions you know they will have a hard time answering.
It's sloppy and deceptive. If you want to attack the arguments against GM foods, attack them, not the people who believe them.
And there are a lot of "non-experts" out there that also have financial incentives to make a lot of claims. Not sure which is worst, a bought expert or a bought con-man without any kind of expertise.
He has, "secret information" his "friends" tell him. But it's always wrong. He doesn't let the fact his "friends" have never been right yet, cause even the slightest bit of doubt.
People just believe what they want to believe.
Do people know scientific consensus does not make something scientific fact? The only reason to push a consensus is because it is something that can't be proven by science.
When someone tells me Climate change is scientific consensus, it tells me it can't be tested and proven. Most scientists don't run the tests, they just read the paper and assume everything in them is correct.
I take scientific consensus the same as a scientific study (like the affect of butter on a human), while interesting, you should not put much trust in it until there is proof, you don't know who is paying for the study, or if they are getting paid to get a desired result. Many studies turn out to be wrong years later.
As if there was ever any doubt.
People don't have a problem with science being used for good, but when Monsanto releases a new pesticide that destroys crops of other farmers, they have every right to scream. Clearly the author of the article is s shill for big agriculture and isn't actually reporting.
So you spell it with one and one quarter of an angstrom?
....has been well documented for 20 years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...â"Kruger_effect
-Styopa
Thanks to science we no longer have to blindly accept church dogma. Now, we enlightened folks, just accept Scientific dogma. Whereas in the past i had to look up a biblical truth and loudly besmirch anyone who did not accept its devine wisdom, now i just look on the interweb and find a scientific truth and loudly besmirch anyone who does not accept its Scientific wisdom.
The same peopel that were calling for Galileo's head are the same people calling to arrest anti-vaxers. The new boss is the same as the old boss.
German Wiki also spells it Kruger. So no umlaut with his name.
English speaking people tend to misspell certain German digraphs by swapping the letters, for example ie (writing weiner instead of wiener) or ue (Kreuger instead of Krueger). I have no idea why, though.
German "wie" is pronounced roughly like English "we". IMHO, the same logic applies to a lot of other common misspellings: you know how the word sounds, then you try write it as if it were a word of your native language. To me, this always gives the impression that the person never studied any foreign languages, because (omg) different languages have different logic for spelling and pronunciation.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
First off, we don't have a food shortage, we have food distribution issues and corruption.
I've got nothing against advancing the fields of genetics. I fully expect future programming languages to be genetically based and we'll eventually engineer organisms to do stuff for us. However I am against how most companies are doing it. Currently they're producing fruits that taste better. Meaning sweeter fruits which means fruit with more sugar. They're turning healthy food into candy so you'll buy more of it from their company. I don't agree with that type of change. Until GMO laws require companies to say what feature they added/removed/changed so people can make educated choices if they want to, I'm forced to be against all GMOs. Considering the bullshit of allowing non-human readable labels on food, we'll never get the labeling laws I want.
Lastly, remember Firefly.
"Anyone who disagrees with us is wrong and gay. [important scientist version]"
Igw is a nice example of what the article talks about.
He is probably an absolute thinker. Such people tend to see things in a very black-and-white way, despite the fact the world is nothing like that, so they oversimplify and misunderstand in order to make things fit their view.
It would sure be nice if science were based on such absolute concepts of some sort of proof that can be achieved apart from consensus. It would make the whole enterprise so much more convenient. And the belief that it is so provides a sense of security, as people can go around believing that they have a correct understanding of the important facts and all such matters are settled.
But it just isn't so. "Objectivity" is impossible to obtain by one's self. One could be hallucinating (to oversimplify). "Objectivity" in the scientific sense requires that multiple people report the same findings, in order to prove that it wasn't just one person's hallucination. The word for this method is "consensus."
It makes things hard. And opens the door for politics and what-not. But that's the only way it can work.
if NASA ever blundered then it waspainting petrified wood and sending these to museums around the world as Moon rock evidence of their 1st post on the Moon.
Why would anyone trusty anything from Rational Wiki? This is a site that reports Donald Trump is an honorary Cossack, based on a second hand report from a Russian tabloid of questionable veracity.
As ever, this promotes something that supports the general bias of the site, so they mention that this is a thing, and assert it strenuously, but don't put any weight on the studies that contradict the findings. There's a single link to a paper that claims "Evidence of factual backfire is far more tenuous than prior research suggests. By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments." but no mention of this in the article body.
Ironically, Rational Wiki is a victim of confirmation bias. Although to be fair, I'm pretty certain the entire site is satire.
... I thought we were discussing the reason we have Trump in the Oval Office. The I realized that we're actually addressing the shortcomings of Ann Coulter and her ilk.
Like the nice man said, "It's too bad that ignorance isn't painful".
I always say, go with your gut, and my gut tells me that this is a bunch of made-up gobbledegook, and you can't tell me any different.
Male, Female, It. Science knows nothing! :)
What this article ignores is a long, long history of science telling us to do one thing, while eventually having to recant the whole thing,
How many people still believe that aluminum causes Alzheimers? That eggs are bad for your health? There are a lot of other examples where consensus has been wrong, and not just by a little bit.
So why should we not be skeptical of what climate scientists say now? Why should we not say, even if the prognosis for warming is right, what if they are wrong about root cause?? The reasonable person with any kind of understanding even of just modern, never mind ancient, history SHOULD be a skeptic, always - with good reason. It's the rabid non-skeptics you learn over a lifetime to distrust completely.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah, the spelling with a 1/4 in his name is the most correct.
They spell a lot of English words wrong too. There are few consistent spellings in English to begin with.
So it's not the "Dunning-Krueger" effect, it's the "Stunning-Goober" effect.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
You're assuming that everyone's opposition to genetically modified foods is based in science. If it's based in something else, then their ignorance of the science is irrelevant.
E.g.: My opposition to genetically modified foods is based around patent law and biased food safety regulations/regulators. I do happen to have a reasonably good understanding of genetics, but that's almost irrelevant to my opposition. (It's relevant to certain corner cases, so I can't say actually irrelevant. E.g. the spread of BT infusing genes into the weed gene pool is likely related to the decline in butterflies and many other insects, though I wouldn't call it a major cause without a study.) So I'm not intrinsically against genetically modified foods, but I'm strongly against the existing implementation. (As a related fact, I don't use either MS software or Apple software because I won't agree to their EULAs.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Ego is inversely proportional to knowledge ~ Albert Einstein.
Watching a bunch of non plant biologists talk about Monsanto..
I'm not a plant biologist. I am simply a molecular biologist, which is the same basically as a plant biologist except without plants. But I know enough to know I don't know enough to comment on Monsanto. Although, having talked to some plant biologists in the past, my sense is that comments about Monsanto are a bit off the mark.
The so called "backfire effect" was unreplicable. Even Nyhan, the guy who wrote the original paper, said that he can't get it to happen in a study again.
https://www.wnyc.org/story/walking-back-backfire-effect/
https://educationblog.oup.com/theory-of-knowledge/facts-matter-after-all-rejecting-the-backfire-effect
>As researchers Thomas Wood and Ethan Porter summarize:
>“Across all experiments, we found no corrections capable of triggering backfire, despite testing precisely the kinds of polarized issues where backfire should be expected. Evidence of factual backfire is far more tenuous than prior research suggests. By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments.”
While they reference Trump, it think it applies to almost everyone with an internet connection. Trust me on this. I know a lot.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
So, for example, i actually took the time to find out where the whole "97% of scientists agree about climate change" came from... and that leaves me to suffer with the burden of the "illusion of knowledge"? Really?
ever heard of the lunatic fringe?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Enough said.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
It is call the "Slashdot Effect" in the USA! Dipshits!
Yet somehow I suspect Bayer (formerly Monsanto) is unlikely to prevail in a bid to invoke physiological phenomena to explain away their culpability in a court of law or as a viable means of swaying public opinion.
WHO has ruled glyphosate a probable carcinogen.
A metric shit ton of leaked internal documents from Monsanto itself raise the same concerns.
Very few are confused by GMO = bad = wrong red herring anymore. The issue was never GMO itself but rather the poisoning of food its use enabled.
First and foremost, you don't need to be outside of the scientific consensus to have an extreme viewpoint. You don't need bad data to propose bad solutions. People are doing it absolutely every day. And this notion that scientific consensus means anything, and that no new information is allowed through those hallowed halls is equally troubling. Not arguing that every idiot with a microphone should be allowed to speak. Just saying that the scientific consensus has been dead wrong, more than a few times in the last 500 years. We need to be open to new and iconoclastic ideas. We'll be worse for the ware if we dismiss everything as crazy and/or uninformed.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Oh, and... fuck orthodoxies.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
"wie" is not pronounced like "we". It is pronounced like "vee".
This phrase is never used when there is a real science. It used only for politically favored modeled outcomes in very complex systems.
Nobody uses the phrase "scientific consensus" when it is actually achieved: when series of definitive experiments are carried and then carried again and again.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
> German "wie" is pronounced roughly like English "we".
In what region of which German speaking country?
I've heard it many times, on the East side of the Rhine river, and in Vienna (the Wien in Wiener, by the way)
In both places, the 'Wie' is pronounced as a straight 'Vee'. There is no hint of anything like a rounded vowel, such as in the English 'we' or French 'oui'.
No good deed goes unpunished...
Such a "believe us or else you're stupid" argument is in itself stupid. Believe the science, don't believe the dogma or the brow beating so-called authorities that want to force you to believe what they believe, truth be dammed. Force them to prove it, don't let them shove it down your throat. Consensus is only needed if no one is sure, and instead need nods to silence dissenters.
The Backfire Effect has been grossly over-sold. Even the original evidence for it wasn't all that strong in the first place, and attempts at confirming it haven't been doing so well:
If you like cheap irony: the widespread conviction that the Backfire Effect is real is itself a sign of cognitive limitations-- people really like that story, and won't let go of it.
The most terrible thing is to think that scientific consensus is some kind of truth.
Science is done by experiment, evidence, and theory explaining the evidence. No mob consensus has place.
Yeah, no thanks to all the stupid fucking French words that got stuffed into the language. Every time you come across one of those words you just can't ever seem to spell right, look up its etymology and sure as shit it's a fucking French loan word.
I think what he means is that the English pronounciation of the wie in wiener sounds identical to the English word spelt we.
This reminds me of how older children are most likely to die in a survival situation (lost in the woods in the winter etc.) because younger children follow their instincts and adults have enough knowledge to reason out their survival. Older children attempt to reason out their survival but don't have the knowledge/wisdom to do so as successfully as if they had just followed their instincts.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Hmm... People from Vienna (German: Wien) are Wiener, people from Hamburg are Hamburger...
We're one delicious people, folks.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
THAT is what is important and is the difference between stupid and STUPID. A baby doesn't know what a cow is and points at it asking "Why" (because their vocabulary is insufficient to ask their real question), but they want to know. We call that ignorant.
But these fuckwits WANT to remain stupid. They don't what to know.
They're stupid.
Because that's what his high priced lawyers got the court to say. Monsato has a shit ton of money to spend on lawyers. Most farmers cave.
Then again, even after the foot-and-mouth epidemics, farmers were STILL caught feeding sheep bits to cows, because that ups the weight of the cow (like feeding it female growth hormones and massive antibiotics, which latter created most of the resistant bugs we humans are dealing with now) and makes more profit.
The point in any case is are you safe from accidental seeding?
NO.
It's still 100% there no matter if you believe Monsato's lawyers or don't.
We obviously have very different editions of the bible.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There are 27 at least. Since your claims rely on non-human reproduction, there are multiple sexes in species with, for example, Z chromosomes being used to denote them.
Moreover your claims conflate reproduction with sex or gender and that is solely due to the helix being double stranded, meaning you can either have both, one from one being and one from another.
But that is at the cell level. And if we count that level, you're mostly not human: the vast majority of your cells are not human. They're parasite/symbiote cells. And most of them asexually reproduce.
So your claims are meaningless tripe.
Moreover, how the fuck do you tell which sex someone is when choosing which changing room they go to? It's not the cell mechanisms. It's the surface bobs.
But why the fuck do we care who goes into which changing rooms anyway?
Sexual preference.
But if THAT were an actual problem, it would be 100% fine for gays to go into the womens' changing rooms, and 100% wrong for them to go into the mens.
And then you have what formation of bobs you have.
Only one testes?
No breasts?
Defunct but fully present ovaries? Testes?
Pre pubescent or post?
And if you want to bleat on about internal biology, then the brain chemistry is ALSO part of internal biology. As is the body chemistry. So which hormones at what level do you have? That makes it non binary. Brain matches the sewer facilities or not? Matching the hormones? How about the eggs and sperm? What if you have both?
So no matter how you decide to slice it up, you either have a continuum abandoning any limited set of criteria, or a multitude of genders to match up which side of male and female each character the human has that counts toward sex.
Or you have stupidity when you just claim "X or Y chromosomes!!" since there's XX, XY and XXY to deal with in just chromosomes. And chimeric people can have one body part from a "male" while the rest "female". Not forgetting conjoined twins of different genders, which is a whole different ballgame.
Newton said it centuries ago: standing on the shoulders of giants. That's CONSENSUS. Building on the work gone before NOT by doing it all over again for yourself but by agreeing with them because so many other people have (due, because this is SCIENTIFIC consensus, you fucking retard, so many repeated tests of their claims having been bourne out over the years).
If it were not able to use consensus, then you would need to test your mathematical claims such as "1+1=2" is true before you can start checking that any science is true, since science relies on maths, and you dont want to admit to the consensus of mathematicians...
English speaking people tend to misspell certain German digraphs by swapping the letters, for example ie (writing weiner instead of wiener) or ue (Kreuger instead of Krueger). I have no idea why, though.
Because we won the bloody war.
Jokes aside, people unfamiliar with a language will mispronounce it because they simply aren't the letter sounds they're used to. With common languages like English and German we often have the same sounds but different spellings. It gets really difficult with very foreign languages like Thai that have a "pb" sound that is very hard for a westerner to pronounce. With English, we're kind of used to it as English itself is a mongrel language and defending it's purity is like defending the virtue of the town bike.
But proper nouns don't change according to language. A German bloke named Krueger would still be Krueger in English.
Also Slashdot shite unicode support so anything with an Umlaut or Virgulilla (tilde above the N used in Spanish) can't be easily displayed here.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
You can use HTML entities for Ümlaüts and tildes. It's a paiñ, UTF-8 support would be much better.
Also you misspelled "shit." ;)
And this is how the whole cottage industry of cranks got started.
The fact that the 15 true or false questions were not shared makes me question if they were as factual as claimed. If I was to make a questionnaire, and on make half of the items talking points of an argument I was promoting, I would be unsurprised to find the people who disagreed with me performing poorly. So until it is verified that the questions aren't of the "GMO crops will save billions of lives in the coming century: True or False?" variety, I will treat this study very skeptically.
Which shows there is no steady state for climate, that it is constantly changing and that it does not match in any way the CO2 record. You are also missing all of the 'We Is Doomed' talk which does require modeling.
What I don't understand is why people get upset that someone doesn't agree with them. If your neighbor doesn't believe in AGW, that doesn't mean he is causing AGW anymore or less than you are. And for sure you and your neighbor contribute less than Al Gore, et al.
No one fucking likes you and we don't want to hear your shit anymore. It's that simple. I don't care if you speak truth or not: if you say the sky is blue then I'm gonna say it's green because FUCK YOU. It doesn't matter if it's tribal or not, PEOPLE ARE TRIBAL.
I first came across the backfire effect as such roughly two years ago from the following presentation:
Dan Saks on talking to C programmers about C++ — September 2016
Key point: If you're arguing, you're losing.
Some of my old bookmarks:
18m00 "show me all the data you want, C++ is still undesirable"
28m00 Jonathan Haidt and motivated reasoning
43m50 ethics of persuasion
46m50 backfire effect
55m26 concrete suggestions
Concrete suggestions begins with the simple question: "how would you define a data type?" and then delivers a lesson on articulating what you (probably) already know.
Then there's a case study on developing a type safe array memcpy in pure C (you can almost get there, but not quite).
Along the way there's a pointed case study in humility porn on implicit decay in function argument context, which I think is intended to raise "good grief" eyebrows on both sides of the aisle.
What is array decaying?
Exceptions to array decaying into a pointer?
This presentation feels as old as dirt and twice as slow, but the value is solid.
Good thing I know everything then
Rather DUNNING Kruger than Freddy eh?