The_Lone_Beagle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2014
- Messages
- 716
- Reaction score
- 5
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!
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.”
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!