Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Ok, read the article...it had its highs and lows, but basically was meant not as a research article, but rather almost like an op-ed. It was somewhat of a ?polemic? i.e., it was going to be read favorably by the people who agree with it, and isn't likely to convert anybody from the other camp.

At the end, the prez of AAAS stated:

“Everybody should be questioning,” says McNutt. “That’s a hallmark of a scientist. But then they should use the scientific method, or trust people using the scientific method, to decide which way they fall on those questions.”

Click to expand...

I think therein lies the problem. It costs a LOT of effort to be questioning. It is a lot easier to rely on assumptions and habit, than to challenge everything continually during the day.

If you do question things, you have to have a certain level of competence in order to understand and make accurate judgments about sometimes rather complicated things. Unless you have specific knowledge about something, you are likely better off accepting acknowledged experts in that specific field, but how many people understand and recognize their own boundaries of competence. Plus, didn't Dr. McNutt state we should all be questioning? And a lot of people don't like relying on somebody else's expertise, especially when "I know" or "In my experience," etc.

It was interesting that the article started with the issue of fluoridation of water, and how that is still being debated. At least the number of flat-earthers has declined (I think, I am too afraid to look for their YouTube channel!).

The article also brings up the fact that the playing field isn't level...scientists don't have their own PR firms or publicists, and they definitely don't have funding or a huge bankroll to buy commercial time, or magazine ads, etc., to get their opinions across to the public like big corporations do (or politicians). And as others have brought up, scientists are humans, and some can be bought or sold. Remember how Big Tobacco fought and fought for decades against the scientific evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, by using hired-gun scientists and ghost-writing articles in scientific journals. Even recently (this week) there is evidence that some university professors either colluded or unwittingly took tobacco money to write a favorable study in a non-peer reviewed journal, disputing the notion that plain-packaging reduced the number of new smokers (I'll dig up that article tomorrow, I don't want to wake up my wife right now...currently huge controversy in the UK.

Finally, it is possible to apply the scientific method logically, and come up with an incorrect answer, just because you don't have the proper foundational knowledge...for a humorous example, see Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the bit where the "scientist" explains how to determine if a young woman is witch. "Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?"

Ok, I read your article, feel free to read (or ignore) mine!

It doesn't just happen here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...ric-tells-students-Earth-does-not-rotate.html

To many times science fiction becomes science fact. Unfortunately money and power get behind certain scientific theories and it becomes the "consensus" (a lame excuse to attempt to prove something). All real debate, truth, and process go out the window. That is why we doubt.


TA

The author paints with a broad brush by lumping climate deniers with flat earthers and moon hoaxers... (points lost for the condescending tone)

This is obviously another Global Warming piece... (sorry Thirsty, it's true)

As some have pointed out, we are sick of being lied to... (the lies have permeated every aspect of our culture)

We are constantly being told "What to think" about this and that... (I will continue to think for myself)

Just because you wear a white robe doesn't mean you're right... (no more than wearing a black robe makes you an authority on the Constitution)

Science is not consensus... (have I said anything that would cause this thread to disappear?) If so, WHAT?

Word four: SUBMISSION

I'll keep it simple: There are three answers for each hypothesis, yours, theirs, and the truth. The one you want to believe is up to you.

The entire premise of this thread is flawed. There is no such thing as "reasonable people".

Airobert said:

A lot has to do with your world view-those few core beliefs that you have that color all of your other beliefs. Unfortunately your beliefs do not necessarily have anything to do with reality, and I would say that the "Absolute true reality" is all but unknowable. So we all just run around trying to force whatever new information we get into our established beliefs. That makes for a lot of, "Those guys are lying." and conspiracies.

The next concept would be the strength of your beliefs. The stronger your belief the harder it is to convince you to change it. How hard would it be for me to make you believe that 1+1=Q???
I have seen the proof that 0.999 to infinity is equal to 1.0, I still don't believe it. Even though it is used regularly to accomplish other math.
The article talks about things that are easy to see but go against known facts. Particularly the whole flat earth thing. How many of us could prove that the earth is a sphere using only our own observations and first hand knowledge? The only reason we believe that it is a sphere now is because it has been beaten into our heads at a young age. If you first heard of the earth being a sphere when you were twenty, how hard would it be to believe?

Another that was touched on that is big for me is the miss-trust of the media. First they say one thing, then they say that the opposite is true. It turns out that most every article that I actually knew of the events reported, it has been miss-reported, miss-represented or contained factual errors.

So with all of this interference to "The Truth" it's all but unknowable. So why modify ones beliefs to match the new reality when there is little or nothing to gain by it?

Click to expand...

Two things that stood out for me that are related to what you mentioned are the power of intuition and the power of peers or your "affinity group."

A lot of scientific ideas run counter to intuition and your gut instinct for what is true. One example from the article is Galileo. When he stated that the sun doesn't move around the earth, instead the earth spins on its access and the earth moves around the sun, he wasn't just going up against dogma --- he was going up against intuition. You can't feel the earth spinning, and it looks like the sun moves around the earth. And even scientifically literate people struggle with their intuition when science conflicts with it. The example given is if you ask a scientifically literate person if the earth moves around the sun, they'll give the right answer, but there is usually a slight pause --- they Ned a moment to put what they know intellectually ahead of what they feel intuitively.

The most interesting thing to me in the article was the idea that your group identity and your peers have such a strong influence and can trump scientific reasoning. Your statement of your beliefs serves as a badge that identifies you with your group, and antagonistic groups can have different beliefs about scientific issues. You see this all the time on certain hot-button issues where a person's position is not based on science but based on whether the person is liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, urban or rural, religious or not, etc. I've always thought that reason should be able to overcome flimsy beliefs held by particular groups, but the article points to some of the reasons why that might not be the case.

Generally individuals don't see any upside to bucking their peer group and little practical downside to bucking science. So for example, a person might figure it doesn't really matter either way what they as an individual believe on one of these topics, but if they take a view contrary to their peers, they'll be out of the group. To take one of the issues listed in the article, a person might feel it doesn't really matter very much in the larger scheme of things what side they take on evolution, but if they embrace it, they might pay a social price in their church. And it's probably not that anyone consciously says, "I've decided to reject reason so that I can agree with my peers and keep my position in my group." I think it is probably more of a subconscious molding of beliefs to fit in socially --- part of human nature.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

I'm going to disagree with you that the article comes down to a debate about climate change. That's not what the article is about.

Click to expand...

It's OK to disagree. However about half of the article is about how people reject the claims of climate change. I would have been 100% behind the article if they had not chosen this tack. At this point, the article starts to become hypocritical and contradictory. Or perhaps it's delving into the absurd and it's just too subtle for me. The author spends the first half of the article making the argument that people ignore the process of gaining facts ("science"). He then spends the second half crying "No, no! Ignore *their* science and facts! Accept only mine!". This is not what reasoned science is about. Human nature, yes - this is what human nature is full of. But not science.

Everybody believes in something. I believe I'll have another cup of coffee. :wink:

KidRockET said:

Science is not consensus... (have I said anything that would cause this thread to disappear?) If so, WHAT?

Click to expand...

Actually science (or at least the process of science) is all about consensus. There's a whole boatload of arguing before we get to "confirmed scientific law" from "I have this idea". Consensus comes from peer review and criticism.

One of the main foundations of science is repeatibility - if I can do an experiment and get X results, then everyone who does the same experiment in the same conditions will get X as well.

The article overly complicates the issue. Its all very simple (Occam's Razor applies) human individual (not peer group) nature.

1. If the science benefits you, "You're gonna live!". You do not doubt the science.
2. If the science hurts you, "You're gonna die!". You doubt the science.
3. If the science has no effect on you. You do not care.

The_Lone_Beagle said:

Ok, read the article...it had its highs and lows, but basically was meant not as a research article, but rather almost like an op-ed. It was somewhat of a ?polemic? i.e., it was going to be read favorably by the people who agree with it, and isn't likely to convert anybody from the other camp.

At the end, the prez of AAAS stated:

I think therein lies the problem. It costs a LOT of effort to be questioning. It is a lot easier to rely on assumptions and habit, than to challenge everything continually during the day.

If you do question things, you have to have a certain level of competence in order to understand and make accurate judgments about sometimes rather complicated things. Unless you have specific knowledge about something, you are likely better off accepting acknowledged experts in that specific field, but how many people understand and recognize their own boundaries of competence. Plus, didn't Dr. McNutt state we should all be questioning? And a lot of people don't like relying on somebody else's expertise, especially when "I know" or "In my experience," etc.

It was interesting that the article started with the issue of fluoridation of water, and how that is still being debated. At least the number of flat-earthers has declined (I think, I am too afraid to look for their YouTube channel!).

The article also brings up the fact that the playing field isn't level...scientists don't have their own PR firms or publicists, and they definitely don't have funding or a huge bankroll to buy commercial time, or magazine ads, etc., to get their opinions across to the public like big corporations do (or politicians). And as others have brought up, scientists are humans, and some can be bought or sold. Remember how Big Tobacco fought and fought for decades against the scientific evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, by using hired-gun scientists and ghost-writing articles in scientific journals. Even recently (this week) there is evidence that some university professors either colluded or unwittingly took tobacco money to write a favorable study in a non-peer reviewed journal, disputing the notion that plain-packaging reduced the number of new smokers (I'll dig up that article tomorrow, I don't want to wake up my wife right now...currently huge controversy in the UK.

Finally, it is possible to apply the scientific method logically, and come up with an incorrect answer, just because you don't have the proper foundational knowledge...for a humorous example, see Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the bit where the "scientist" explains how to determine if a young woman is witch. "Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?"

Ok, I read your article, feel free to read (or ignore) mine!

Click to expand...

Thanks for reading the article, and now I promise to go back and read yours! :wink:

You are right that the article mentions the fact that scientists don't have PR firms, publicists, etc. to promote their ideas. But it also makes the point that most scientist don't actually seek to take positions on policy or politics that relate to their research. As soon as they do, it feeds right into the perception that they are proceeding from some kind of agenda or pre-concieved bias.

Chuck,

Sorry if my answer causes you to lock the thread. It is the only honest answer I can give. It is intended to answer the OP's question, not to preach, proselytize, convert, or change anyone's mind. Anyone who takes offense at my comment should examine whether or not I have broken the rules, or if he is having an emotional reaction based on his own worldview.

I am a Christian. God's Holy Spirit convinced me many years ago that the words of the book we call the Bible are true. When I say "true," I mean that they fundamentally teach truth. I do not mean that every word is literally true, since the Bible contains poetry, parables, analogies, metaphors, and the like. I mean that the Bible, when it establishes a fact either literally, poetically, etc., it is truth.

Thus, there are certain truths that come out of the Bible that, for me, are inviolable. One of those is that God created everything. How? I don't know. Was it in 144 hours, or is this poetic language for something that actually occurred over millions of years? I don't know. But any science that denies the existence of God when discussing the origins of the universe is, to me, very suspect. I am okay with a big bang, as long as we understand that it was God who created the initial matter and caused it to explode.

Another truth that comes out of the creation story is the phrase "each according to its kind." When God creates each of the types of creatures, culminating in man, he creates them "according to their kind." To me, this flies in the face of evolution. There were specific acts of creation and specific thoughts and designs of God behind the origin of each species. I do not see room for evolution in this.

I am willing to admit that my interpretation of the Bible could be wrong (not that the Bible could be wrong, but my interpretation). But since evolution has not been conclusively proven, I am under no obligation to accept it, when I believe that my interpretation of Scripture provides a better explanation.

To me, the definition of "science" should be: understanding what God has done. And to me, true scientists are trying to do just that. But since the most vocal scientists in the world (Hawking, Dawkins, etc.) are atheists, I have a fundamental adversity to their findings. To me, anything that denies God or denies God's active role in creation, is simply false.

The Bible also teaches that human beings are "fallen," i.e., in a corrupted state of thinking and feeling. A specific act of God (what Christians call "rebirth," "salvation," "election") must happen to a person in order for that person to even be able to begin seeing the whole, uncorrupted truth. Human nature is fallen nature, i.e., corrupted. So when the Bible comes into conflict with science, I have to choose between the findings of fallen man and the teaching of an infallible God. It is obvious which one I pick.

I hope this helps illuminate the worldview and mindset of the true Christian. We are not unreasonable or unintelligent. It should be easy to see that there is a deep conflict between atheistic rationalism and Christian rationalism. Christians do not believe that all science is evil or false. I am thankful every time my doctor gives me medicine to make me well. I am a diabetic on an insulin pump! I am glad that airplanes (and rockets) can fly, that we can have electric light in our homes, that we can use the Internet. Science has given the world wonderful things, and will continue to do so. Again, to me, science is understanding what God has done, and being able to use that understanding to improve upon our fallen condition. The only science that I cannot accept is the theoretical stuff that denies the existence of God, or denies God's hand in creation, or seeks to render the Bible as untrue.

Now, that's me. For some other Christians, who interpret the Bible more literally than I do, less and less of scientific theory/discovery is acceptable. As an example, in Revelation it states that God flung one third of the stars down on the earth. I choose to interpret that as being metaphorical for the downfall of kingdoms. Others interpret this literally, and believe that in the future, God will indeed fling 1/3 of the stars upon the earth. You can see where it is then impossible for them for to accept that there are trillions of stars, and that they are all larger than the earth.

It is incumbent upon Christians to weigh scientific discovery against what the Bible says, and when the two are in conflict, to see if there is an alternate interpretation of the Bible that would be equally true, but not in conflict with the scientific finding. This is where I think many Christians fall down. But we are fallen! All of us! Including Christians! So I will agree to disagree with these brothers. But by the same token, I cannot find a way to interpret "each according to its own kind" to mean "evolution."

If I have helped anyone to understand "the other side" a little bit better and in a reasonable way, mission accomplished. Please carry on.

sooner.boomer said:

It's OK to disagree. However about half of the article is about how people reject the claims of climate change. I would have been 100% behind the article if they had not chosen this tack. At this point, the article starts to become hypocritical and contradictory. Or perhaps it's delving into the absurd and it's just too subtle for me. The author spends the first half of the article making the argument that people ignore the process of gaining facts ("science"). He then spends the second half crying "No, no! Ignore *their* science and facts! Accept only mine!". This is not what reasoned science is about. Human nature, yes - this is what human nature is full of. But not science.

Click to expand...

I agree to disagree! I'm not seeing the part where the author is saying not to believe the other side's science, believe mine. But maybe I'm reading the article through the bubble-filter of my own affinity group. :wink:

sooner.boomer said:

Actually science (or at least the process of science) is all about consensus. There's a whole boatload of arguing before we get to "confirmed scientific law" from "I have this idea". Consensus comes from peer review and criticism.

One of the main foundations of science is repeatibility - if I can do an experiment and get X results, then everyone who does the same experiment in the same conditions will get X as well.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct on this. Rigorous peer review and repeatability is how scientific consensus is formed. It's not a bunch of guys saying, "Sounds legit. Lets call it a consensus and go get some beers." Scientists are competitive and like debunking each other and finding flaws in each other's research, and that is how the truth is eventually found, through hard brutal criticism and repeated testing and refinement.

“Climate change denial” Right there is why a lot of people are starting to get the feeling that science has sold out to politics.

First; nobody is “Denying” that the climate is changing, the climate is always changing the questions, that for many, that haven’t been answered to their satisfaction is the extent of said change, what is man’s contribution to said change and is there anything that we could do to change the change.

I’m the first person to argue the case that we shouldn’t be pouring PCBs, heavy metals and other obvious pollutants into the environment but the idea that mankind’s .04% addition to the total carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere by natural processes is somehow a “Doomsday Scenario” doesn’t pass the smell test.

We went down this road with the ozone hole/chlorofluorocarbons hysteria, which was nothing but a scam by which Freon could be outlawed leaving DOW Chemical to make billions as the only company with a suitable replacement.

Then there is the use of the word “Denier used as a means associate them with, Oh say, Holocaust deniers.
There’s a sure fired way to win friends and influences people.

And let us not even venture into all the “settled science” with regards to health, exorcise and nutrition issues that get rewritten and outright debunked more often than I change the oil in my car.

Whether or not science is the key to all knowledge, this much I know:

Mankind would be much better off if we would embrace the Great Commandment of Jesus Christ which is...Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

tmacklin said:

Whether or not science is the key to all knowledge, this much I know:

Mankind would be much better off if we would embrace the Great Commandment of Jesus Christ which is...Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Click to expand...

That doesn't always make a difference. For instance, I never share my religious beliefs in the forums, and yet people insist on making sure I know theirs.

I have a problem with people calling evolution science. Both evolution and creationism is not science because they are not something that can be tested and proven, but are theories and conjectures based on available evidence.

The problem isn't global warming, but rather what is being done about it, if anything can be done at all. Carbon credit is just another way for elites to make more money while oppressing more people in developing countries.

Jesus never said "do unto others as they do unto you" but to "love God with all your heart and love your neighbors as yourself", and his last commandment is to "go make disciples of all nations, baptizing people in the holy spirit, and I will be with you always."

sooner.boomer said:

Actually science (or at least the process of science) is all about consensus.

Click to expand...

Sorry, scientific validity isn't determined by majority vote... (Galileo had it right but was not in the "consensus" of his time)

Mushtang said:

That doesn't always make a difference. For instance, I never share my religious beliefs in the forums, and yet people insist on making sure I know theirs.

Click to expand...

Amen brother!

Quote from the article in question:
"We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change—faces organized and often furious opposition."

What bothers me the most is when people try to make a 50/50 (or even a 90/10) into a 100%. Climate change "denial" isn't "anti-Science", but more part of the basic scientific process. Climate change is still a theory until irrefutable proof is obtained. I think we don't have enough data points to prove beyond a doubt that humans have changed the climate to the degree that they supposedly have. A few hundred years out of 40,000 Human existence(or billions of years of the earth's existence) is a pretty small sample.

FYI a theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

taiwanluthiers said:

I have a problem with people calling evolution science. Both evolution and creationism is not science because they are not something that can be tested and proven, but are theories and conjectures based on available evidence.

The problem isn't global warming, but rather what is being done about it, if anything can be done at all. Carbon credit is just another way for elites to make more money while oppressing more people in developing countries.

Jesus never said "do unto others as they do unto you" but to "love God with all your heart and love your neighbors as yourself", and his last commandment is to "go make disciples of all nations, baptizing people in the holy spirit, and I will be with you always."

Click to expand...

I think I'll post some Satanic quotes, or some teaching of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Surely that's okay to do too, right?

Mushtang said:

I think I'll post some Satanic quotes, or some teaching of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Surely that's okay to do too, right?

Click to expand...

Bring it on before this thread gets locked!

boomtube-mk2 said:

“Climate change denial” Right there is why a lot of people are starting to get the feeling that science has sold out to politics.

First; nobody is “Denying” that the climate is changing, the climate is always changing the questions, that for many, that haven’t been answered to their satisfaction is the extent of said change, what is man’s contribution to said change and is there anything that we could do to change the change.

I’m the first person to argue the case that we shouldn’t be pouring PCBs, heavy metals and other obvious pollutants into the environment but the idea that mankind’s .04% addition to the total carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere by natural processes is somehow a “Doomsday Scenario” doesn’t pass the smell test.

We went down this road with the ozone hole/chlorofluorocarbons hysteria, which was nothing but a scam by which Freon could be outlawed leaving DOW Chemical to make billions as the only company with a suitable replacement.

Then there is the use of the word “Denier used as a means associate them with, Oh say, Holocaust deniers.
There’s a sure fired way to win friends and influences people.

And let us not even venture into all the “settled science” with regards to health, exorcise and nutrition issues that get rewritten and outright debunked more often than I change the oil in my car.

Click to expand...

You're getting off topic Boomtube. I asked that people stick to commenting on the article, the topic of how people come by their beliefs, or on their own systems of thought. And I asked that people do not comment on specific hot button topics. Chuck also warned against getting into politics. Let's keep on topic. If you want to start your own thread about Global Warming, go ahead, but let's not get this thread locked, please.

Watch this topic of religion.

Mushtang said:

I think I'll post some Satanic quotes, or some teaching of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Surely that's okay to do too, right?

Click to expand...

You know Satanic quotes? Who knew? :rofl:

Well its summed up in this quote from the article (see I did read it)

“Science will find the truth,” Collins says. “It may get it wrong the first time and maybe the second time, but ultimately it will find the truth.”

Thats small comfort to know that eventually someone will get the right answer when you have a child born with severe disabilities because science told you Thalidomide was safe. I can say that because my mother was offered Thalodomide when pregnant with me. Her mother told her to ditch it - what researchers call naive belief there but as it turned out a wise call and a better one than supposedly more clever people at the time suggested was the case. I remember the effects all too clearly - seeing children my age horribly deformed as a child. and my heart still goes out to them.

Science has done some good work but I am not blind to its massive downsides and costs. Only last week I was in the London SCience Museum. Just down the hall from a genuine Apollo capsule and a mock up of the Lunar Landing there is a display case with some of the surgical prosthetics for children born with Thalidomide deformities and just seeing that again broke my heart in ways I cant put into words. A more cogent argument about the benefits and downside of science would be hard to do. On one hand we get a few people to the moon - on the other a whole generation of people with damaged lives.

It will also be small comfort to know science may get it right eventually if GM crops go pear shaped and some unforeseen effect takes place. I mean here we are barely down from the trees and now so sure of ourselves we are prepared to mess about with stuff like the basic genetic material which nature has been doing alright with since before we were small furry mammals. Its like we don't remember when people were selling us radioactive ice cream and makeup or bombarding people with X-Rays as a 'feel good' treatment, or carrying out routine lobotomies for people who were 'excitable', denying the value of anaesthetics and disinfectants, radiating half of western europe during two nuclear 'accidents' creating an endless list of drugs with 'unforeseen' side effects, giving people ECT therapies etc.

The list of scientific goof ups is almost endless and its always preceded by someone pronouncing that they are sure its harmless- because science is not the last word its just the best we can do at the time - a kind of current thinking on the state of things and subject to review later on. If science screws up apologists will jump forward to say how 'we couldnt have known etc etc' a wiser race might put some of it on hold pending further consideration but we as a species just jump right in each time - did we just destroy your life ? Whoops sorry about that but we'll get it right eventually - wonderful !

To reqoute “Science will find the truth,” Collins says. “It may get it wrong the first time and maybe the second time, but ultimately it will find the truth.” No it wont Mr Collins it wont ever find 'The Truth' it will only find alternative explanations..... we cant ever know the truth even if such a thing exists we can only have a hypothesis which seems to fit the facts. Even Newton didn't find the truth - he found a special case and a set of math we could work with.

You know the Marshallese Islanders - still suffering from being exposed to radioactive fallout during tests in the Pacific - say of us (us being white western technocrats) that we are 'Smart at doing stupid things' which perfectly sums up how I feel about science which can be summed up as deeply sceptical about any scientific surety and maybe explains why others feel a need for alternatives.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

I wouldn't say the article is necessarily off base in stating there is a lot of doubt in science, but I'd agree that a lot of it has to do with mistrust of institutions.

Click to expand...

I don't trust anybody... 'nuf said...

Later! OL JR

tmacklin said:

The entire premise of this thread is flawed. There is no such thing as "reasonable people".

Click to expand...

Exactly...

The more I learn about people, the better I like my cows...

Later! OL JR

luke strawwalker said:

Exactly...

The more I learn about people, the better I like my cows...

Later! OL JR

Click to expand...

Plus One on the cows. Sure, they're dumb as hell but they don't argue about who's right and who's wrong. And they're delicious when cooked properly!