The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science

[LadyCrimson]

I believe in the scientific method and science as a whole. I just don't believe a lot of science has enough information yet to come to a 100% true conclusion about much of anything very complex. It hasn't been long enough.

[Walsingham]

 

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.

 

 

Yeah, and then, like if anything important wants doing we can watch them flap about like wet hens.

 

~

 

I approve of the eight ball idea. Is there some way we could install the eight ball inside Vladimir Putin's shiny forehead? Then it would be both mystical and manly.

 

EDIT: Plus, to shake it we could grab him by the lapels and jink him about.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Walsingham

[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.

 

 

Yeah, and then, like if anything important wants doing we can watch them flap about like wet hens.

 

~

 

I approve of the eight ball idea. Is there some way we could install the eight ball inside Vladimir Putin's shiny forehead? Then it would be both mystical and manly.

 

EDIT: Plus, to shake it we could grab him by the lapels and jink him about.

 

If there was something important that needed doing would you really want it being done by a pack of incompetent sycophants most of whom have never had or would be able to keep a real job and who only got elected because they were somehow less repugnant than all the other choices?  

[Walsingham]

Touche.

[Darth InSidious]

Believe in science? You might as well worship a hammer.

[Amentep]

I believe in gravity.  It helps me keep my feet on the ground, as it were.

[alanschu]

I agree, well grounded.

 

I find articles like this more interesting for my own introspection.  Being cognizant of it.

 

I'm less inclined for some of the more preachy aspects (yes, studies can be wrong). 

 

 

It reminds me a lot of this Cracked article (posted this one before), especially point #1:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html

 

 

People *really* hate to be wrong, and I know I have been like this as well.  The the point where I am pretty sure I have argued "black is white."

[Rostere]

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.

 

This, pretty much.

 

"Science" is a series of increasingly accurate (by some measure...) theories which in turn describe a universe which we are able to ask increasingly difficult questions about. You can only ever say that according to certain (a certain type of) measurements, your theory will likely have a certain degree of accuracy. It seems also to be a fundamental truth that those measurements in turn are always influenced by your way of measuring.

 

Really, the more you learn, the more questions you have. There are likely no "final" theories of physics (general phenomenological science), although sadly there have been significant movements in 20th century physics to suggest what can be interpreted as just that.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, funny how a Marxist rag like Mother Jones is complaining about people ignoring facts and evidence. Here's an interesting article on the peer review process : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/25/peer-evil-the-rotten-business-model-of-modern-science/

[alanschu]

Thanks for affirming the thesis of the paper!

 

(I wish I had actually written down my prediction of your response, in retrospect)

 

 

Reading your link:

 

 

 

Let me explain. All the reviewers are anonymous. That is, they know your name but you do not know theirs. This is the first red flag: unless you plan to do something really bad, why do you insists being anonymous? The second red flag is that none of them gets paid. Those who believe in Santa Claus will say, well, they are just nice people volunteering their time to help advance science. Those who work for a living will smell a rat. I can give you one reason: being a reviewer gives you power over other people. Some just enjoy it, others use it to advance their own agenda. Such as approve manuscripts that praise reviewer’s own research and reject those that criticize it.

 

 

Can you think of any good reason why it may be advantageous to not pay reviewers, and for them to be anonymous?

 

 

EDIT:  Why would it matter what someone's sense of humor is like, like the author supposes?

Edited June 26, 2013 by alanschu

[ManifestedISO]

My brains are depleted after stumbling over the syntax in that peer review article rant.   That level of indignation reads like a rejection letter. A rebuttal to a breakup. And the most "exciting period" in science is decidedly every new day we're here to see it. 

 

The most interesting part of the OP article was the "milliseconds" reaction time for feelings to manifest. I feel, faster than I think. Which likely means Rodin mislabeled his work. That sculptured Thinker isn't thinking, it's feeling, and then deciding how to interpret it. Hmmm ...   

[Zoraptor]

Meh, there's stuff wrong with academic review, certainly. What he suggests won't fix anything though, and is an obvious ideological tilt at science that he doesn't personally agree with- which equally obviously only gets approved because the system is broken and has __ist bias, while right thinking people struggle manfully to illuminate ignorance and battle Big Science. I'd strongly suspect the whole point of that article is wanting to get reviewers named so he can, well, 'name and shame'.

 

Really though, he wants academic articles, some of which may have the number of people who adequately understand their principle numbering at less than a hundred approved within hours of submitting. That isn't just moronic and a recipe for getting a whole lot of bad blog style papers- approved by someone who's had a bad day perhaps, or dislike the author's name; but at least is getting paid to randomly dislike things rather than doing it for free- in many cases it is literally impossible.

[BruceVC]

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.

 

Wow that's one of the best articles I have read in ages. Really insightful and relevant. I have forwarded it to all the people that I know would appreciate the content

 

I read many interesting points, but the ones that for me are most interesting are

 

• The facts, despite what I normally believe, won't always convince people
• Our subconscious defense mechanism around contrary ideas is to rationalize and not reason
• To convince someone we can't just use facts but we have to integrate this with there values

I find the last point the most thought provoking, I want to discuss this later when I have a break from work as this will lead to more debates

[BruceVC]

Meh, there's stuff wrong with academic review, certainly. What he suggests won't fix anything though, and is an obvious ideological tilt at science that he doesn't personally agree with- which equally obviously only gets approved because the system is broken and has __ist bias, while right thinking people struggle manfully to illuminate ignorance and battle Big Science. I'd strongly suspect the whole point of that article is wanting to get reviewers named so he can, well, 'name and shame'.

 

Really though, he wants academic articles, some of which may have the number of people who adequately understand their principle numbering at less than a hundred approved within hours of submitting. That isn't just moronic and a recipe for getting a whole lot of bad blog style papers- approved by someone who's had a bad day perhaps, or dislike the author's name; but at least is getting paid to randomly dislike things rather than doing it for free- in many cases it is literally impossible.

 

Wow, I think you have missed the whole point of the article. But I want to discuss this later when I have more time

Edited June 26, 2013 by BruceVC

[Walsingham]

I was about to reference a book written in 1992, and then realised it's completely out of date.

[TrashMan]

 

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.

 

 

 

So true. It's all tied into how our brain works and our preconcpetions. I wrote almost the exact thing you did once, in an article on acceptance of anime . Le'ts see if I can dig it up..

[Zoraptor]

Wow, I think you have missed the whole point of the article. But I want to discuss this later when I have more time

 

That was with respect to WoD's link, not Allan's- which I (probably unsurprisingly) near entirely agree with.

[BruceVC]

 

Wow, I think you have missed the whole point of the article. But I want to discuss this later when I have more time

 

That was with respect to WoD's link, not Allan's- which I (probably unsurprisingly) near entirely agree with.

 

 

My bad, I apologize. I was thinking "how could you have got the link so wrong, it doesn't sound like you "

[mkreku]

Hey, BruceVC, has anyone ever told you that you're disgustingly positive, polite and friendly?

 

I think you're the only person on this board where the moderators could turn off the profanity filter and noone would ever notice. EVER.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think BruceVC is plotting something sinister, nobody is that positive and friendly.

[Malcador]

Plenty are, usually people under the effects of narcotics or some form of mental illness.

[Guard Dog]

Hey, BruceVC, has anyone ever told you that you're disgustingly positive, polite and friendly?

 

I think you're the only person on this board where the moderators could turn off the profanity filter and noone would ever notice. EVER.

[BruceVC]

Hey, BruceVC, has anyone ever told you that you're disgustingly positive, polite and friendly?

 

I think you're the only person on this board where the moderators could turn off the profanity filter and noone would ever notice. EVER.

 

 

 

Hey, BruceVC, has anyone ever told you that you're disgustingly positive, polite and friendly?

 

I think you're the only person on this board where the moderators could turn off the profanity filter and noone would ever notice. EVER.

 

 

Its funny you mention that but on my old forum I was told the exact same thing , people use to joke about it

 

But I have a rule, only say something on the Internet that you are prepared to say to that persons face. Also I try to be respectful  and polite but I don't always achieve that goal

[alanschu]

 

 

I'd strongly suspect the whole point of that article is wanting to get reviewers named so he can, well, 'name and shame'.

 

I got that vibe too.  Based on the article, he only reinforced that reviewers should be anonymous.  Though it was also a good point that there's really no reason for the submitter to have his or her name shared either.  I mean, some here judged the original article based on where it was originally submitted.

 

Peer review, like anything with a human element, is not going to be immune to human corruption.  I do not think that unmitigated submissions would be ideal, however.

 

 

Since peer review is a human endeavor, however, I think it does lead into the idea of the original article of enabling rationalization.  Since the peer review process is innately fallible, it now becomes possible to be dismissive of evidence based on a general belief that the system is corrupt.  Though, myself included, our confirmation bias has us less concerned about the system when we agree with the findings.

[Zoraptor]

They don't always share the submitter's name(s)- sometimes articles are reviewed double blind. It's not a common approach and would not work as well as might be expected- I know my dad did a double blind review recently and guessed the author correctly after only reading the abstract. In any small field there is a limited number of people who can produce stuff, and generally their specialities and preferences are well known.