Jump to content
IGNORED

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?


wgscott

Recommended Posts

Teresa-

Basically everything you wrote about macroevolution is incorrect, and based on a misunderstanding of biology and evoutionary science. It really is a shame that you insist on getting your information from biased anti-evolution sources. Evolution isn't about "creating frogs from fish". No one claims this happens.

Every species is constantly evolving, and every species is essentially a transitional species. But new species do emerge. As a small example we know of instances where "sterile" breeds (to each other) you mention have bred with other similar species and created new species previously unknown, that are fertile and can't breed back with the parent species. By definition a new species and an example of macroevolution. Plant examples have occurred several times in the last 100 years. Your saying it is biologically impossible doesn't make it so.

 

The "reports" of vaccines causing autism have been thoroughly discredited. But if you think you know the difference between good and bad science, then keep believing in them.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >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 good example of how science works, but again it is one limited epidemiological study, with some weaknesses, that goes against the findings of many others from all over the world and over decades. On its own it doesn't mean a lot.

 

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.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >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

Unfortunateunately most people aren't very smart, someone earlier mentioned apathy. Simple people, the masses, want simple answers, they want and trust absolutes. How many people walk into the first floor of a multistory building and stop at the threshold because they suddenly doubt the science that went into making that building and fear it will collapse - none, they consider that an absolute science and they trust it. Now if a scientific paper published that there is a 1% chance that a vaccination can cause problems (even though the basis of that claim was proven wrong) the seed of doubt was planted and a sceptism movement is formed.

 

So now we have our wonderful Internet that everyone wants to trust as the source of knowledge (I need to see what kind of degrees the "University of Google" offers :) ). Unfortunately it doesn't take much more that a good web programmer to make an impressive looking fact based website that it completely full of false information. Throw in enough keywords to ensure google hits and your now pushing your false agenda.

 

Simple people don't understand how scientist pick at each other in order to make sure thier theories don't have holes in them. And people with agendas take advantage of those scientific arguments for thier own campaigns. So what's a simple minded apathetic person to do? They typically follow someone they trust (Jenny McCarthy, Oprah, etc.) and let that person be thier guiding light.

 

The masses are apathetic cattle looking for simple yes/no answers that can be spoon fed to them. Funny but one of the things I really like about CA is the lack of cattle :)

Analog: Koetsu Rosewood > VPI Aries 3 w/SDS > EAR 834P > EAR 834L: Audiodesk cleaner

Digital Fun: DAS > CAPS v3 w/LPS (JRMC) SOtM USB > Lynx Hilo > EAR 834L

Digital Serious: DAS > CAPS v3 w/LPS (HQPlayer) Ethernet > SMS-100 NAA > Lampi DSD L4 G5 > EAR 834L

Digital Disc: Oppo BDP 95 > EAR 834L

Output: EAR 834L > Xilica XP4080 DSP > Odessey Stratos Mono Extreme > Legacy Aeris

Phones: EAR 834L > Little Dot Mk ii > Senheiser HD 800

Link to comment
Teresa-

Basically everything you wrote about macroevolution is incorrect.

 

No, it's two different definitions: evolutionists usually end microevolution at the species level, whereas creationists end variation (microevolution) at the biological family level. Thus for this discussion variation (or microevolution) include changes below the family level (genus and species), what in the Bible are called kinds. It's the biological classification outside each animals designated family that we believe is impossible to cross.

 

As a small example we know of instances where "sterile" breeds you mention have bred with other similar species and created new species previously unknown, that are fertile and can't breed back with the parent species.

 

Creationists believe in changes within species, it is variation (microevolution).

 

By definition a new species and an example of macroevolution. Plant examples have occurred several times in the last 100 years. Your saying it is biologically impossible doesn't make it so.

 

That is because you misunderstand that Biblical "kinds" is the closest to the "family" designation. Thus for creationists microevolution includes all biological changes within kinds, which would include changes within each family biological designation (genus and species) but not outside of it. It is microevolution beyond the "family" biological classification which is impossible.

 

Those plants did not change into non-plants, that is variation and within kinds.

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

Firedog it looks like you made a few changes since I replied, I just want to respond to one thing.

 

The only reason I personally refuse to be vaccinated is because of my terrible person experience with the flu vaccine that I do not want repeated. I would not dare to tell anyone what to do, they can make their own decisions.

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 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.

 

 

No one said Big Bang theory is the ultimate theory of origin of universe. But certainly, this is the theory that is agreeable with most of the observations. It certainly comes with its own problems like singularity as you have said. But it provides a good benchmark for the next improved theory. It does not mean this theory should not be taught in school because it is incorrect theory. If we accept your reasoning, we should never be taught Newtonian mechanics because it is wrong and superceded by theory of relativity. This is so so wrong. In science, no theory is ultimate and cannot be improved. We have to accept all scientific theories are approximation of the truth.

Link to comment

Thooth enamel contains mostly hydroxyapatite which can become fluoroapatite in the presence of fluoride ions which may make the surface of the enamel slightly harder but even more brittle. In my view some fluoride is beneficial but excessive fluoride levels not. I see no scientific reason to use fluoride systemically (like drinking water) but orally in toothpaste or rinse makes sense.

Scientific facts are complex and I guess that is the reason why science is often rejected or substituted by a simplified, static view of the facts. The reason I became a scientist is constant process of critical revaluation.

That also applies for me to audio. I see a lot of static engineering knowledge which leads to little progress in that field especially related to loudspeakers. On the other hand there are a lot of pseudo science developed by marketing (quantum effects etc.). Also there is a lot of discussion about what we can hear leading to so called objectivist or subjectivist believe systems instead of being open and critical.

Link to comment
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

 

Talk about taking things out of context. This had nothing to do with the content of the issue and wasn't a form of censorship. The speaker ordered it removed because of the way it was being used politically to disturb the proceedings. The action was more akin to a teacher taking away a comic book from a student who is reading it during class. :)

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
Not sure if this thread is gonna end well. But as an atheist Dutchman, this creationism-versus-science thingy is pretty damn entertaining. Popcorn, beer, good music, and reading people citing the Bible in a thread about science. Awesome!

 

For some reason, many Americans have a difficulty understanding that the Bible is not the basis for a scientific discussion. Whatever point of view you have about the Bible, it isn't a document dealing in science, nor does it claim to be. Other than a passing reference, discussion of it and its' ideas doesn't belong in a science class. In other kinds of classes, maybe, but not in a science class.

 

2 caveats before you jump on me: 1) my main course of study in undergraduate work was in Bible, and I can read the Hebrew Bible in the original. I'm not the worlds expert, but I certainly know something about the texts and appreciate them; 2)my above comments aren't directed at Teresa, they're a general observation I've made in discussions with people in the US.

 

As far as evolution: creationists use/change/distort the scientific concept of macroevolution so that it is useful for them. Of course no one has observed one kind of animal turning into another. That process takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years. And there aren't going to be obvious missing links of one species morphing into another kind of animal. No scientist thinks it works that way.

 

The process is obviously a gradual one.

 

But on what basis can someone say it is impossible? None that can be backed up by anything but belief.

 

Evolutionary theory predicts it happens. We have no biological/scientific indication that it can't happen. But we do have massive evidence backing that up in the fossil record, in genetic analysis, and in the observation of mutations and changes in life forms in recorded history. All of those are predicted by the theory. To say that it is impossible is to ignore all the evidence, without coming up with any alternative explanation that explains it, without recourse to religious belief of some kind.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >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

Just to bring this thread back to audio as a microcosm of the wider perspective on science - I find that most of the "scientific" explanations used on audio forums are simplifications or misunderstanding of science & scientific principle - the principle that it should always be borne in mind that a theory is just the best current "explanation" for observed phenomena & should not be used to deny observed phenomena.

 

DBTs are a good example of this. It's typical use in audio shows a distinct lack of understanding of how such a tool should be correctly used in the field of perception. The recommendations for it's use in this area are given in ITU documents but they are largely ignored in tests actually run. This misuse of this scientific & statistical tool is then couched as "science" & served up as reliable.

 

The problem with the general public & science is the same as anything that is subtle & complex - it needs simplification for general consumption & in this simplification a dumbing down can result to the extent that the message in the original idea is lost or changed beyond recognition.

 

How many of the public know about e=mc(squared) or global warming compared to how many of them know about quantum theory. The first two being easy soundbites & the later needing at least a whole paragraph for a "simple" explanation

Link to comment
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.

 

I am 47 years old, and for most of my adult life, I always believed in the "silent majority". You know, your neighbors who are perfectly reasonable folks, have no interest in getting into it with hard core folks on either the left or the right because they have better things to do. Folks who seemed to be able to see the issues and balance out the loudmouths screaming at each other from both sides of the aisle. People with whom you could discuss some of what would be called hot-button issues, and without it degenerating into a shouting match, at the very least you could agree to disagree. The last ten years or so have proven me wrong. I am with AudioDoctor, most people are not very reasonable anymore.

MacBook Pro (2011) -> PureMusic 1.8 -> USB -> Burson Audio HA-160D -> Audez\'e LCD-2[br]Macbook Pro (2011) -> PureMusic 1.8 -> USB -> Burson Audio HA-160D -> Emotiva UPA-2 -> Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1\'s

Link to comment

Science is only one of tool for learning our world.

 

Esoteric also learn our world. But from other side.

 

Me seems, both methods must be. Scientific discoveries is result of incomprehensible us mind's processes.

 

Some reasonable people doubt in science? It's right. Science is not dogma :)

 

Each scientists must doubt in his knowledges and recheck his results.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
Not sure if this thread is gonna end well. But as an atheist Dutchman, this creationism-versus-science thingy is pretty damn entertaining. Popcorn, beer, good music, and reading people citing the Bible in a thread about science. Awesome!

 

+1

 

Thanks to everyone for giving me an entertaining way to pass my afternoon.

Family Room: Panny TCP65S2, Panny BDP-55, DTV HR-24, SB Touch, Schiit Bifrost Multibit, Yamaha RX-V3900, Emotiva XPA-3, Rocket NM 550's, Rocket 150's, X-CS, UFW-10, Harmony 700.

 

Computer Room: Dell laptop, Uptone Regen Amber, Schiit Bifrost Multibit, Decware SE84C+, Zu Omen, ALO National, Mr.Speakers Mad Dog headphones

Link to comment

Science is not binary. It could be a dichotomy, perhaps, but in the present world it is seldom that. For example, there are different fields of science...some may ascribe to some of the fields, while holding other fields in a greater degree of skepticism. Not to mention that the word "science" is frequently tacked onto things that may not readily fall to the scientific method. Examples are: "political science", "social science"...very hard to constrain variables, essentially impossible to repeat experiments.

 

But this forum is in audio land. If a person is asking, "Why do so many people doubt science?", it can be almost certainly assumed they did not wander here from a psychology forum--or even an archeology forum.

 

So here is a very real problem with this and other audio forums... Too often, the people who shout "Science!" the loudest, too often the people who claim to be an advocate of "science", seem to have had at most a class or two, maybe in high school, maybe in college, that was concerned with some scientific discipline. Yet, those people are far, far from any kind of personal scientific discipline. Their "logical" constructions, their use of the methodology of language, reveal them to be not much more than schoolyard bullies who have somehow come to believe that "science" is the ultimate club to smite down an opponent.

 

Broadly, science is not an argumentative tool--though logic, and reason, might be.

 

Perhaps it is my personal perception (and if you knew my educational and professional background there would be almost no one who put me in the "subjectivist" camp), but most often the "subjectivists" appear entirely more rational, in approach and in organization of thought and sentence, than the self-described "science-based" "objectivists" do.

 

My fine "objectivists", you have so much more to learn. Time to get started. Science is not a shillelagh. Science is out there...and all knowledge is interim knowledge. The point we are now in will mutate as knowledge advances.

Link to comment
Because they are not reasonable...

 

I agree.

 

We are foolish to "believe" that (compulsory) education can make a knowledgeable, reasonable citizen out of any person.

 

 

 

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

 

In Portugal about 95% of the children are vaccinated (although there are rumours that this number has decreased a bit due to the economic crisis).

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
Interesting read from the always controversial extremist publication National Geographic

I suspect the reporting of science is also partly to blame.

 

The mass media will take a report, designed to be read by other "scientists" take a few salacious points, turn them into headlines and make them into facts for the public. Next week another report which on the face of it contradicts the first, repeat the reporting process and the public get two reports both from "scientists" which appear to contradict each other.

 

That's (partly) why they doubt science.

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
I suspect the reporting of science is also partly to blame.

 

The mass media will take a report, designed to be read by other "scientists" take a few salacious points, turn them into headlines and make them into facts for the public. Next week another report which on the face of it contradicts the first, repeat the reporting process and the public get two reports both from "scientists" which appear to contradict each other.

 

That's (partly) why they doubt science.

I believe this is a HUGE reason. But the press is selling stories... making a living. I blame scientists for not managing the message better. You are right that journal articles are meant for other scientists to read, and you can't really understand what they did, the context and what it means without reading the whole thing. BUT, scientists need an organization (like AAAS) to help make the take-home message accessible to the public, without journalistic sensationalism.

Another related problem is that many scientists need to make their incremental step look more important to bolster the significance for their grant proposals.

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...