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."
'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?
The problem is that they've legally shed themselves of liability for any problems it causes. Basically they sell the seed and collect the profit from all farmers who want to use it. But if the seed spreads to farmers who don't want it, they just throw their hands up and say, "Not our problem!
This is just a blatant lie, and it's embarrassing that you've been modded insightful. While Monsanto existed they had a standing offer to remove any "contamination" of neighbouring fields at no cost to the farmers. It wasn't much of an issue since most farmers weren't stupid enough to consider it contamination in the first place, but for those who did raise a stink Monsanto was quite happy to come in and remove the plants.
Of course this shouldn't even be a Monsanto responsibility in the first place. If your neighbour is raising a crop that you don't want in your fields, the two of you should be sorting out any contamination issues between you. Certainly if my hippie neighbour contaminates my GMO fields with his crappy plants, I can't go after whatever dipshit sold him the seeds. Why anyone would expect Monsanto to take responsibility for it is beyond me, but they did anyway.
I didn't bother reading the rest of your comment since you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.