Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

[Hiro]

I think that another reason why people "doubt" science of say, vaccines, is that they don't understand the meaning of the word theory used in a scientific context. You'll hear for example creationists saying that the theory of evolution is just a theory. I guess they also believe that the germ theory of disease is also "just a theory", and tiny germs (like viruses) which human eye can't see don't really cause disease. You know, germ theory, is just a theory, I won't use vaccines.

 

Why work on Ebola vaccine? Germ Theory is just a theory.

[sbgk]

FYI: 2014 was the warmest year on record.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17195[/ATTACH]

 

There is less than a 1-in-27 million chance that Earth's record hot streak is natural

 

That should help the icebreakers on the Hudson.

[sbgk]

I think that another reason why people "doubt" science of say, vaccines, is that they don't understand the meaning of the word theory used in a scientific context. You'll hear for example creationists saying that the theory of evolution is just a theory. I guess they also believe that the germ theory of disease is also "just a theory", and tiny germs (like viruses) which human eye can't see don't really cause disease. You know, germ theory, is just a theory, I won't use vaccines.

 

Why work on Ebola vaccine? Germ Theory is just a theory.

 

bit worrying that there is a vaccine compensation scheme.

[Hiro]

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

 

We shouldn't confuse doubt and skepticism with "manufactured doubt" and "pseudoskepticism". Those actually do much harm.

 

What Can Be Done about Pseudoskepticism? - Scientific American

[sbgk]

We shouldn't confuse doubt and skepticism with "manufactured doubt" and "pseudoskepticism". Those actually do much harm.

 

What Can Be Done about Pseudoskepticism? - Scientific American

 

I always believe what the government and media tell me. I wish they would get involved in digital audio, then I'd know what to believe there as well.

[Hiro]

I always believe what the government and media tell me. I wish they would get involved in digital audio, then I'd know what to believe there as well.

 

Who said anything about government and corporate media?

 

We're discussing the attitudes of laypeople towards findings of peer-reviewed science.

[sbgk]

Who said anything about government and corporate media?

 

We're discussing the attitudes of laypeople towards findings of peer-reviewed science.

 

I hope I don't have to spell out the link between government/media and what the general public think ?

[Hiro]

I hope I don't have to spell out the link between government/media and what the general public think ?

 

It would behoove the general public to learn when government/media are following the established science, and on which occasions they do not. In which situations governments actually consult the scientific community to guide their policy, and when politicians represent the agenda of corporate lobbyists.

[Raym87]

As for the moon landings, I am not convinced.

[Audio_ELF]

I hope I don't have to spell out the link between government/media and what the general public think ?

Of course just because you're paranoid... Doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!

[sbgk]

It would behoove the general public to learn when government/media are following the established science, and on which occasions they do not. In which situations governments actually consult the scientific community to guide their policy, and when politicians represent the agenda of corporate lobbyists.

 

As the general public behave like sheep then they will be able to behoove.

 

In these situations it's always instructive to follow the money.

[sbgk]

Of course just because you're paranoid... Doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!

 

Don't understand your post ? What's it got to do with what influences people's ideas and beliefs ?

[Audio_ELF]

Don't understand your post ? What's it got to do with what influences people's ideas and beliefs ?

Because you appear to be of the opinion that Governement and Big Business are engaging in mind control behaviour.

 

Such a belief (as it appears from some of your comments) would be classified as classic paranoid thinking.

[sbgk]

Because you appear to be of the opinion that Governement and Big Business are engaging in mind control behaviour.

 

Such a belief (as it appears from some of your comments) would be classified as classic paranoid thinking.

 

A bit strong, but I guess that's the way you've been indoctrinated.

[Audio_ELF]

A bit strong, but I guess that's the way you've been indoctrinated.

Well I don't feel I've been indoctrinated, I try to read several sources then come up with my own view based on the available evidence.

 

Eloise

[sbgk]

Well I don't feel I've been indoctrinated, I try to read several sources then come up with my own view based on the available evidence.

 

Eloise

 

well, if it's news to you that the government use the media to sway public opinion I'll leave you to your land of fluffy rabbits and marshmallows.

[Audio_ELF]

well, if it's news to you that the government use the media to sway public opinion I'll leave you to your land of fluffy rabbits and marshmallows.

Perhaps in your country, but the free press operates quite well here in a more enlightened countries. If anything it's the press having too much power and influencing the government than vice versa...

 

(PS I never realised your blogspot was .co.uk so I assume you are in UK... In which case I think you are really misjudging the influence the government has over the media here - of course IMO)

[Paul R]

It would behoove the general public to learn when government/media are following the established science, and on which occasions they do not. In which situations governments actually consult the scientific community to guide their policy, and when politicians represent the agenda of corporate lobbyists.

 

Well, it might behoove people to also learn that science is not the job of the government. Thus it should not be led by a bunch of smart, but politically naieve science people.

[christopher3393]

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.

 

Well said. Thanks.

[Hiro]

Well, it might behoove people to also learn that science is not the job of the government. Thus it should not be led by a bunch of smart, but politically naieve science people.

 

Scientifically incompetent people in power should at the very least consult those with the knowledge of the natural world to inform and guide the policy-making process.

 

[video=youtube;hfq7mF9-ndA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfq7mF9-ndA

[christopher3393]

Interesting read from the always controversial extremist publication National Geographic

 

Good article. It introduced me to Dan Kahan of the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School: www.culturalcognition.net - home

 

Seems like a very timely project.

 

The site also led me to an article which I found thought-provoking: Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality - Slovic - 2004 - Risk Analysis - Wiley Online Library

 

Just a small tease from the article:

 

Table I. Two Modes of Thinking: Comparison of the Experiential and Analytic Systems

Experiential System/ Analytic System

1. Holistic/ 1. Analytic

2. Affective: pleasure-pain oriented/ 2. Logical: reason oriented (what is sensible)

3. Associationistic connections/ 3. Logical connections

4. Behavior mediated by “vibes” from past 4. Behavior mediated by conscious appraisal of events

experiences/

5. Encodes reality in concrete images, 5. Encodes reality in abstract symbols, words, and numbers

metaphors, and narratives/

6. More rapid processing: oriented toward 6. Slower processing: oriented toward delayed action

immediate action/

 

7. Self-evidently valid: “experiencing is 7. Requires justification via logic and evidence

believing”

[AudioDoctor]

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.

 

That is a very good point.

[gmgraves]

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 ?

 

 

Science is not supposed to be about belief, and real science is not a belief system. The real problem is the interpretation of scientific data. A scientific "finding" is not supposed to be gospel, it's merely the result of study or a group of studies. No real scientist would ever present such a finding as a definitive answer, it is merely a working hypothesis; IOW, something that seems, from the evidence, to be the case. Unfortunately, the press treats such a finding as an absolute answer. Then when a further study casts doubt on previous findings, the press seizes on that too and tells people that science was wrong. This undermines public confidence in the science and you hear people say things like "First they tell us that (eggs, salt, red meat) are bad for us, then they turn around and tell us that these things aren't bad for us." Do this enough and people lose all confidence in the scientific method. This is especially noticeable WRT unpopular scientific findings (such as climate change). People don't want to believe it's happening so they doubt the science behind it. "These scientists have been wrong before. I suspect that they are wrong now!" It's largely not the fault of the science - which poses only questions, but rather is the fault of the Fifth Estate which wants only answers. The public hasn't the education or the background, in most cases, to tell the difference.

[Audio_ELF]

Unfortunately, the press treats such a finding as an absolute answer. Then when a further study casts doubt on previous findings, the press seizes on that too and tells people that science was wrong. This undermines public confidence in the science and you hear people say things like "First they tell us that (eggs, salt, red meat) are bad for us, then they turn around and tell us that these things aren't bad for us." Do this enough and people lose all confidence in the scientific method.

This is a good example of what I was commenting a few posts back.

 

A report says "we are eating too much red meat" (or whatever). That gets reported as "red meat is bad for you". Later another report says "a moderate amount of red meat can help prevent (a particular) illness" which is reported as "red meat cures illness".

 

Especially when many people only read headlines and summary paragraphs it's not surprising they get confused!

[sandyk]

Especially when many people only read headlines and summary paragraphs it's not surprising they get confused!

 

Even worse for Audiophiles, are the so called "White Papers" published by some audio firms.