Jump to content
IGNORED

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?


wgscott

Recommended Posts

I suppose this is some sort of progress. They didn't burn the "The War on Science" issue of National Geographic in Ontario, they just removed it.

 

 

Liberals mock MPP's anti-evolution statement with magazine | Ontario | News | To

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
there is always that :)

 

Truth has become subjective, in an environment like that would you expect anything other than what we have now? Half of the aisle is willing to kill the other half for not letting them have their way, and a few have done just that.

 

And don't get me started on Anti-Vaxxers...

 

I firmly believe that most people are not very reasonable anymore.

No electron left behind.

Link to comment
A whopping 38% of the kids at the school across the street where my youngest attends are vaccinated. My immunologist wife finds this perplexing.

 

A biologist friend who is a Christian also finds the anti-vaxxers perplexing.

 

Then again there is this:

 

JENNY McCARTHY: The University of Google is where I got my degree from.

 

I wonder if she got the advanced degree thru Google scholar?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Oh, that's a simple one. "Scientists" are often wrong. When you look at it from a layman point of view that is.

 

Combine that with the uncounted number of hucksters out there, and native caution and skepticism come forward.

 

What I find amusing is a lot of the more vocal scientists encourage skepticism, except about their own ideas. (grin) Academia- a twisted inordinately complex maze of craziness, out of which, conflicting predictions of doom constantly emanate. The louder the better, in terms of getting funded.

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Science is like all the other religions ... there are those that believe, and there are those that do not.

 

Objectively, we might say well, It's science and is comprised of facts and figures that make knowledge.

Subjectively though, research is a process of discovery lead by a person that believes in something.

 

It can take a good long while and enormous effort to get to a point of shared belief.

But there is always room for doubt, nothing is absolutely empirical.

 

Besides, it's obviously white and gold, right ?

Link to comment

First, people doubt science because the vast majority have no idea of what science is and how it works. "Science education" in the US is abysmal - it's not about ideas, concepts, or the intellectual ideas behind science at all. Most "well educated" people I know are included in the group that have extremely limited scientific literacy.

 

If there was the most basic idea of what science is, the demand to teach so called "creation science" on an equal footing with the Theory of Evolution - in science class - wouldn't even be a point of debate.

 

And don't get me wrong here: I'm not debating the merits of either idea here. I'm not saying that creationism can't be discussed in school - just that is has no basis in a science class. It isn't science and isn't a theory - in the scientific meaning of the word.

 

I'm just saying that if there was a common understanding what "science" is and what a "theory" is in science, there wouldn't be a debate on that issue. The debate about evolution would be in a different place. Unfortunately, the vernacular meaning of the word "theory" - meaning "any idea that I happen to like, with or without evidence to back it up" is what is used in the debate about the "theory" of "creation science" and the "Theory of Evolution". The scientific definition of the terms seems to be irrelevant.

 

So with the general lack of understanding of what science is, here are some other reasons science is mistrusted:

 

1. Government, institutions, and corporations have been caught lying to the public when using science, so there is general mistrust to believe any pronouncements about facts and truth.

2. Scientists themselves often debase science, proclaiming "discoveries" to get publicity - and the discoveries turn out not to stand up to scrutiny. We won't mention all the "science" that goes on that is corporate funded and designed to get a certain result.

 

3. The fact that the scientific method leads to changes in what's considered "true" confuses people. 20 years ago we were all told to eat margarine instead of butter and to limit cholesterol intake. Today science tells us the opposite. The conclusion most people draw from that is that it is all bullshit, so why believe anything the scientists tell us?

 

In this and other threads, it's been repeated that science is just another kind of faith. But that truism isn't correct. The difference is that something like religious faith can't be disproved. Suppose one of Jesus, Mohammed, or Moses suddenly reappeared and said that some of the beliefs of their followers are misguided: Many people of that particular religious faith would continue to believe what they know to be true, in spite of the pronouncement.

 

Science allows for what is "believed" to be true (based on observation, facts, and experiments) to be discarded when better information becomes available. Newtonian physics was believed to be a beautiful solution until Einstein came along. But once experimental evidence backed up Einstein, scientists accepted a new concept. Sorry, religion doesn't work that way.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Oh, that's a simple one. "Scientists" are often wrong. When you look at it from a layman point of view that is...

 

I agree Paul and would like to add observations about the linked article as follows.

 

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from climate change to vaccinations—faces furious opposition.

 

Because bad things can cause disease and kill. Just because something is new does not make it safe to use, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and high fructose corn syrup. Profits rather than people's heath issues often are the reason to push unhealthy products.

 

Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation? Fluoridation of water?

Mandrake: Ah, yes, I have heard of that, Jack. Yes, yes.

Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?

Mandrake: No. No, I don’t know what it is. No.

Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?

 

Maybe not a communist plot, but insidious non the less.

 

I live in Washoe County, Nevada and we vote down fluoridation of our water supply every time it comes on the ballot. There are real health risks drinking fluoridated water, better to use fluoride toothpaste and spit it out! The only place in Nevada with fluoridated water is Clark County. See LEGALIZE IT?: Fluoride in water and No Fluoride.com

 

Another example: Flu vaccines. Before my flu vaccination I had never gotten the flu in my life, head colds yes but never flu. The place I worked at offered free flu vaccinations, so I got one, after all it was free. Well, I had terrible cases of the flu one right after the other, I had seven back to back cases of the flu and was sick for over four months. So, I never got another flu vaccination after that and I have not gotten the flu in the several decades since then. Seems I’m one of the rare ones who are allergic to flu vaccines they say. Either that is true it is part of a bigger conspiracy, who knows?

 

In short good science can improve lives, bad science can destroy it.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
...I'm not saying that creationism can't be discussed in school - just that is has no basis in a science class. It isn't science and isn't a theory - in the scientific meaning of the word...

 

Personally, I don't believe creationism, macroevolution and the big bang should be taught in science classes as they are unscientific and unprovable. The only evolution that is real science in changes over time is microevolution and that is what should be taught.

 

Real observational science should be taught in science class and that would include the only provable parts of evolution and creationism, that being what evolutionists calls "microevolution" and creationists calls "adaptation within kinds" or in other words changes within the biological "family" classification.

 

Creationism, macroevolution and the big bang should be taught in theological classes.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment

Sorry, Teresa, your post is a perfect example of misunderstanding and ignorance - and a lack of knowledge of what science is.

 

Fluoridation has been repeatedly examined all over the world - the US, Canada, EU, New Zealand, and Australia in large data sets over many years. All the testing has shown no long term negative effects. You can find lots of sites like Nofluorde.com - those quotes and "facts" are bogus, cherry picked, and not based on science. None of them stand up to minimal examination. Just because someone with a degree states an opinion or someone uses a "study" that is flawed doesn't make it good science or make it correct. THAT is what you referred to as "bad science" - and that's exactly what you are doing.

 

Same thing with flu vaccinations. No one claims that there are never bad reactions to the vaccine. Science says there are. That you may or may not have had one doesn't make the vaccination bad science. Jumping from your personal experience to some kind of general conclusion that the vaccine is a bad idea, bad science, or some kind of conspiracy - that's mixed up, unclear thinking. The simple fact is that the flu vaccine saves thousands of lives every year, and the vast majority of the population receives it without untoward side effects.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

firedog

Well said.

I wish we had Fluoride in the water when I was young.

The Fluoride experience in Australia is very positive.

I agree with Influenza Vaccination too, especially for older people and Asthmatics etc.

A Pneumonia vaccine is available free for over 65 year olds in Australia too.

It saves countless lives. My mother never fully recovered from Pneumonia, and spent the last 12 months of her life in a Nursing Home due to it.

 

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Creationism, macroevolution and the big bang should be taught in theological classes.

 

Your idea about macroevolution is also mistaken. I'm guessing you get your ideas from anti-evolution sites. Pretty much everything those sites/sources say about the Theory of Evolution is based on a lack of understanding of it. And the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution are not widely used in scientific circles, as to scientists, they are two terms describing the same process. The terms are mostly used by opponents of evolution who try to broaden their meaning in an artificial way so that they can say they are different processes.

 

LOTS of evidence for macroevolution. And btw, if you accept "microevolution", then over time it results in macroevolution. If you agree that microevolution exists, then essentially you are agreeing that macroevolution exists - because there is no boundary where you can say that one ends and the other begins. Maybe read some reputable sources explaining the science of evolution, how evolution works, and why it is so widely accepted.

 

Bing bang theory - again there's lots of evidence for it. It's certainly not "settled and proven", but should definitely be taught in science class. It's is disprovable and it makes predictions that can be tested. Some of these tests have backed it up. That's exactly what science is about. Science may find information that makes us abandon it in the future. But that's what science is, and that's why it should be taught in a science class.

 

Creationism: no evidence for it. It's a faith based world view. It can't be proven or disproven. Therefore it isn't science and has no business in a science class. Unfortunately for your position, the Theory of Evolution is a different animal entirely. It can be tested, and so far has held up under intense scrutiny for about 150 years. There's nothing theological about it and there's lots of evidence backing it up.

 

Science isn't about a set of facts that are immutable and always right. It's about a method for understanding the natural world based on observation, analysis, and testing. Not one based on random ideas, unprovable assumptions, baseless assumptions of cause and effect and "beliefs" that have no basis other than the fact that they appeal to someone - or even to many individuals.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

A few reasons come to mind:

 

1. Distrust - in the past scientists have accepted payment by big business to purposely mislead the general public by producing "papers", making public statements or advertisements confirming that their company's products are not harmful when in fact they have known the opposite is true e.g. Big Tobacco.

 

2. Apathy - the non academic layman is simply not interested in making the mental effort to understand a complex theory. One of the reasons IMO why high end audio is such a niche hobby.

 

3. Conflicting Theories - a lot of evidence about global warming has been poorly presented in the past and we now refer to it as climate change. This is because actual "warming" has not occurred consistently over the globe rather weather patterns have changed. People get fed up with reading "expert" opinion that contradicts each other.

 

4. Constant Bullshit - too many advertisers use scientists to claim "clinical studies" or "laboratory research" or "9 out of 10 users prefer" etc to promote their products insinuating that these professionals (scientists) have carried out "independent testing" when an intelligent person will realise in fact there is no such research

 

5. Simply getting in wrong - e.g incorrect weather forecasts or constant claims of weight loss using "proven" techniques such as "fit for life" (fruit before 12) or the Atkin diet that are later dispelled as simply wrong etc

 

I have most probably doubled up but you get the point - scientists have "proven" themselves untrustworthy through the actions of a few of them. People are much better and remembering the negatives.

LOUNGE: Mac Mini - Audirvana - Devialet 200 - ATOHM GT1 Speakers

OFFICE : Mac Mini - Audirvana - Benchmark DAC1HDR - ADAM A7 Active Monitors

TRAVEL : MacBook Air - Dragonfly V1.2 DAC - Sennheiser HD 650

BEACH : iPhone 6 - HRT iStreamer DAC - Akimate Micro + powered speakers

Link to comment
Sorry, Teresa, your post is a perfect example of misunderstanding and ignorance - and a lack of knowledge of what science is.

 

Fluoridation has been repeatedly examined all over the world - the US, Canada, EU, New Zealand, and Australia in large data sets over many years. All the testing has shown no long term negative effects. You can find lots of sites like Nofluorde.com - those quotes and "facts" are bogus, cherry picked, and not based on science. None of them stand up to minimal examination. Just because someone with a degree states an opinion or someone uses a "study" that is flawed doesn't make it good science or make it correct. THAT is what you referred to as "bad science" - and that's exactly what you are doing.

 

Same thing with flu vaccinations. No one claims that there are never bad reactions to the vaccine. Science says there are. That you may or may not have had one doesn't make the vaccination bad science. Jumping from your personal experience to some kind of general conclusion that the vaccine is a bad idea, bad science, or some kind of conspiracy - that's mixed up, unclear thinking. The simple fact is that the flu vaccine saves thousands of lives every year, and the vast majority of the population receives it without untoward side effects.

 

those pesky scientists at it again

 

Fluoride in drinking water may trigger depression and weight gain, warn scientists

 

 

Fluoride in drinking water may trigger depression and weight gain, warn scientists - Telegraph

 

vaccination programs have been stopped in the past due to the number of bad reactions/deaths, so there must be an acceptable level of bad reaction/deaths for a vaccination program to proceed. Unfortunately the public are the guinea pigs.

There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made. Richard P Feynman

 

http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/

Link to comment
Sorry, Teresa, your post is a perfect example of misunderstanding and ignorance - and a lack of knowledge of what science is.

 

I know the difference between real science and phony science.

 

I will continue to vote down the fluoridation of our water supply as I hope all intelligent people in Washoe County will.

 

After my terrible experience with the flu vaccine I will never be vaccinated for anything again ever, I never want a repeat of that hell, you might say I am scared for good reason. You are free to do what you want!

 

BTW I had all the childhood diseases chicken pox, measles, mumps (first on one side and then the other), etc. for which I understand they now have vaccines for with reports of side effects especially autism.

 

Your idea about macroevolution is also mistaken.

 

No it is not, macroevolution is major evolutionary change beyond the “family” biological classification which is unprovable, I and many others believe it is impossible.

 

And the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution are not widely used in scientific circles, as to scientists, they are two terms describing the same process.

 

No they are not!

 

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few. Quoted from
Debunking Evolution: Problems between the theory and reality
.

 

The terms are mostly used by opponents of evolution who try to broaden their meaning in an artificial way so that they can say they are different processes.

 

They are difference processes, one (microevolution) is variation within a biological family, creationists believe in this well observed process and the other (macroevolution) is pure fantasy and biologically impossible.

 

LOTS of evidence for macroevolution.

 

There is lots of evidence for microevolution, but zero for macroevolution. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.

 

And btw, if you accept "microevolution", then over time it results in macroevolution.

 

No it does not and never will.

 

If you agree that microevolution exists, then essentially you are agreeing that macroevolution exists - because there is no boundary where you can say that one ends and the other begins.

 

No I’m not, The boundary ends at reproduction, which generally agrees with the “family” level in biology and the “kind” level in the Bible. When a breeder pushes variation to the extreme, the resulting animal or plant is sterile. That is the dividing line between microevolution and macroevolution, a line that is impossible to cross.

 

Bing bang theory - again there's lots of evidence for it.

 

Sorry there is no evidence for the big bang, a fantasy of an entire universe coming from a singularity that in turn came from nothing. There are other theories for redshift.

 

Creationism: no evidence for it.

 

I agree and that is why I said creationism, macroevolution and the big bang should not be taught in science classes but in theological classes as all three are faith based world views which cannot be proven or disproven. Only real observable science should be taught in science classes!

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
Personally, I don't believe creationism, macroevolution and the big bang should be taught in science classes as they are unscientific and unprovable. The only evolution that is real science in changes over time is microevolution and that is what should be taught.

 

Real observational science should be taught in science class and that would include the only provable parts of evolution and creationism, that being what evolutionists calls "microevolution" and creationists calls "adaptation within kinds" or in other words changes within the biological "family" classification.

 

Creationism, macroevolution and the big bang should be taught in theological classes.

 

I disagree here, I think that every imaginable subject should be brought up and discussed in the schools. Else wise, it will just be brought up and discussed on the street or in internet forums that have far *far* less balance and reasonableness than CA does. (Yes, even if we are all here because of Audio, we are also curious and opinionated human beings. :))

 

You bring up some good points Teresa, and they will make people think. Even though I strongly disagree with you on vaccinations. I have no real opinion one way or the other on fluoride though. Never bothered to research it as people worried about their dental health can always use a fluorinated toothpaste and/or choose to drink bottled water.

 

Just as a side note, we drink bottled water here because we don't enjoy all the arsenic and other unwanted flavorings in our municipal tap water. I have a neighbor who thinks we are silly for doing so, but the bottom line is, tap water here tastes terrible. I am not moved at all by his (pseudo) scientific rants. In fact, just to be a bit irritating, we give the cats and the dog bottled water too... (grin)

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

I don't doubt the lunar landing. I am certain that is was a ruse. I still have my doubts that OJ did it, though.

 

I don't doubt the theory of evolution. I am certain that it isn't quite right though. Observation would suggest that primates evolved from us, not the other way around.

 

Reasonable people don't doubt science. They do doubt the poor work of many scientists, however.

 

I will add that from a scientific perspective, our doubting ancestors likely lived on a bit longer to procreate and provide for their families. You can blame science if you would like.

Link to comment
I disagree here, I think that every imaginable subject should be brought up and discussed in the schools. Else wise, it will just be brought up and discussed on the street or in internet forums that have far *far* less balance and reasonableness than CA does. (Yes, even if we are all here because of Audio, we are also curious and opinionated human beings. :))

 

You bring up some good points Teresa, and they will make people think. Even though I strongly disagree with you on vaccinations. I have no real opinion one way or the other on fluoride though. Never bothered to research it as people worried about their dental health can always use a fluorinated toothpaste and/or choose to drink bottled water.

 

Just as a side note, we drink bottled water here because we don't enjoy all the arsenic and other unwanted flavorings in our municipal tap water. I have a neighbor who thinks we are silly for doing so, but the bottom line is, tap water here tastes terrible. I am not moved at all by his (pseudo) scientific rants. In fact, just to be a bit irritating, we give the cats and the dog bottled water too... (grin)

 

-Paul

 

The theory of evolution is upside down since that guy from Texas was elected President:)

 

Sorry wrong thread

 


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...