The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science

[alanschu]

I enjoyed reading through this:

 

https://medium.com/mother-jones/adfa0d026a7e

 

The synopsis is assessing how we look at science, and some of the resistance we may have to evidence simply because it doesn't fall in line with what we believe.

 

Note that there is some climate control talk, although it talks about how being a Republican or a Democrat is a predictor as to whether or not you believe the claims.  I find this pretty interesting, personally.

[Rosbjerg]

Yep, never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance.. or double-think.

 

It's an interesting study sure and written in very 'digestible' way.

[Walsingham]

I haven't time to read that now. But I'd politely point out that one reason not to believe in science today is that science yesterday very often turned out to be wrong.

[mkreku]

I'm pretty sure science still has a lower fault rate than just guessing.

[Walsingham]

I'm pretty sure science still has a lower fault rate than just guessing.

 

Yeah. I know that. the point is that it's less likely to be wrong today, because it gets tested and improved. Whereas a lot of faiths are 2000 years wrong.

 

However, if you're on edge and need to feel certain, leaning on something which you KNOW keeps breaking isn't very reassuring.

[alanschu]

I'm pretty sure science still has a lower fault rate than just guessing.

 

I wouldn't disagree, though that wasn't really the point of the article.

 

When someone presents science that goes against what you believe to be true, there's a greater chance that you'll reject it (regardless of its scientific validity), and that often the more educated people are, the more cemented they are in their beliefs.  It's suggested that this may be because their are more capable of coming up with reasoning that is well thought out to rationalize their rejection of the findings.

 

 

As such, you'll find that there are people that prefer to believe in "just guessing" (or rather, logical inferences) despite data suggesting otherwise.

Edited June 25, 2013 by alanschu

[Orogun01]

When my aesthetics teacher told in class "Facts are not truth, they are just facts" it took me a few seconds to wrap my head around that. Facts are things that can be verified but are open to interpretation and people's biases. People often use facts to support their crazy beliefs, at the same time you have to wonder about the bias of the people publishing those facts.

[Walsingham]

There's a TV show in the UK called "Can't cook/won't cook."

 

I mention it because human behaviour involves both aspects. You need to have accurate understanding (predictive and insightful), but you also have to act on it. The reason I'd argue people ignore discordant information is because if we didn't then we'd have a more accurate picture but constantly be reversing course. The net result would be something very similar to lunacy.

 

The relevant military aphorism is that it's better to execute a crap plan with energy and courage than to wait for a perfect plan.

[Serrano]

Nevermind this post, sorry.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Serrano

[obyknven]

Scienist mode on.

Google somewhere about difference between scientific and religious thinking. Science is not Religion, and your faith is not needed, science work anyway. This article is absolutely useless, autor is humanitarian untermench.

Scienist mode off.

[Walsingham]

Scienist mode on. Google somewhere about difference between scientific and religious thinking. Science is not Religion, and your faith is not needed, science work anyway. This article is absolutely useless, autor is humanitarian untermench. Scienist mode off.

 

You do realise that it's not in the least bit cute when you _fake_ an inability to write English?

[Guard Dog]

“A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.”

 

 

I love that quote. Of course it presupposes that you are right and the man who disagrees with you is wrong. Actually I find that to be a common flaw in many arguments that appeal to science to to prove their point or to debunk an opposing point. It's a tactic based on the arrogant belief that one knows all there is to know about the subject. Take global warming as an example. That climate change is happening is beyond dispute. It's been happening for literally millions of years. The arguments come when you get into the cause. The political left would have you believe it is all man made, the right that it is not happening at all. They lefties think the right is stupid because they do not see their point of view, but when they are shown that the rate of temperature change on Mars and Venus are close to that of Earth the shoe goes on the other foot and they refuse to accept a point contrary to their belief. Just my experience.

 

This was an interesting read but the idea that the current level of accumulated knowledge provides the foundation for the answers to all things is not only arrogant, it wrong on it's face. For example the article discussed the refusal of religious people of accepting evolution even if they were shown proof. Obviously these proto-humans were running around at some point, and the fact the the less advanced remains are older than the more advanced certainly makes a strong case for evolutionary development. It is foolish IMHO to reject the idea outright for religious reasons but at the same time it is foolish for the secular evolutionists to automatically reject the notion of divine creation since there is no evolutionary path back to the origins of life.

 

Aristotle once wrote "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it". Rejecting a theory which can neither be proven or disproven simply because it does not conform to what they have already made their mind up on does nobody any credit, But anyone who says they don't do it is a liar.

 

  See, I just did it! 

Edited June 25, 2013 by Guard Dog

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The article is right I believe. I think pretty much anyone will chose their beliefs over evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, in many cases(like economics), there is evidence to support a wide range of beliefs, because the high abundance of factors end up creating situations that can lead to many different assumptions.

 

I'm pretty sure science still has a lower fault rate than just guessing.

Nice guess there. Edited June 25, 2013 by KaineParker

[Amentep]

If you don't know or can't understand the science behind why a scientific community might hold theories about certain subjects, you're really only deciding to accept one thing on faith over the other.

 

I imagine that the inability to understand the science - particularly when the science breaks away from the kind of science people learned (that was often basic and lacking in nuance) - leads to an easier time rejecting the science.

 

Add in controversial topics in the field - where top scientists disagree or where politicians seem to "drive" the science for non-scientific agendas...and I can see why people have trouble following the scientific theories.

[Walsingham]

To illuminate my point a little further, a man won't die for Fermat's last theorem.

[Guard Dog]

Amentep hit on a really good point here. Everyone knows religion and politics makes a bad mix. Science and politics is every bit as poisonous for all the same reasons.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Amentep hit on a really good point here. Everyone knows religion and politics makes a bad mix. Science and politics is every bit as poisonous for all the same reasons.

Now I'm glad I avoided Political Science....

[Amentep]

To illuminate my point a little further, a man won't die for Fermat's last theorem.

 

Fermat did, or else it wouldn't have been his last theorem...

[Walsingham]

Amentep hit on a really good point here. Everyone knows religion and politics makes a bad mix. Science and politics is every bit as poisonous for all the same reasons.

 

Well, taken to extremes and without any humanity, yes.

 

Oh blast. This just reminded me we have a UK Health Minister who believes in homeopathy.

[Moose]

We should just base every political decision on a magic 8 ball.

[Amentep]

We should just base every political decision on a magic 8 ball.

 

I think they should roll for it based on the GAMMA WORLD mutations chart.  Whoever gets a "Hopeless" character gets to decide that day.

[ravenshrike]

There are two things that are amusing about the article. The first is that it initially appeared on MotherJones. Just like something appearing on FreeRepublic, it should make one leery of any claims made in the article. The second amusing thing is that not once does the article mention the skyrocketing rates of scientific fraud since the 1970's. The one with the nastiest consequences being SIDS. Well, and the outright ban of DDT. That's killed about 3 milion a year. There was absolutely no reason not to use it as mosquito repellent. It was bad science that got it banned. While nasty when used in  the amounts needed for **** like crop dusting, the minor amounts needed to guard against mosquitos have little to no effect on the environment. Of course, since those doing the dying live in Africa they're not very important in the larger scheme of things.

[Meshugger]

Well, if one searches for absolute truths, you should not look into science, since it always evolves with new theories and laws. Or if you ponder in philosophy or metaphycis. Is there a science on that?

[Amentep]

I remember a story of a guy who just made up a research paper and got it published in a supposedly "peer reviewed" journals.  The journal system itself is a bit suspect; its a requirement for many faculty positions to be published in a journal whose primary market includes the institutions whose employees are required to publish in the journal.  So in essence, many institutions end up paying to get copies of the work their own people are doing.

 

That said, there is a rise in cheating in general (I don't think its that we're just better at catching it; I think the stakes placed on education, on publishing on "getting things out" rather than "getting things right" has increased people seeing cheating as their path to success).  There was a recent news piece that because things like TURN IT IN have become popular with teachers, now students are paying people to write bran new spec papers to turn in so that they can't be matched on the internet.

[Guard Dog]

We should just base every political decision on a magic 8 ball.

Nah, jest keep governments small, ineffectual, and weak. That way when they screw up, and they will, they always will, it won't do too much damage to society.