When science clashes with beliefs? Make science impotent

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheRemains
  • Start date Start date
T

TheRemains

Guest
Cliffs: If you think the weatherman is right 90% of the time, but think the climate scientist is wrong 100% of the time, you're probably a redneck.
 
studies show that they are often discredited by other studies. ill stick with beliefs
 
There is an extreme distrust of science, mostly because people don't understand it or the processes around it.
There is (as the article states) even a selective distrust. Again because people don't understand it.

I think they have a problem with data interpretation...which is one area that I think goes beyond the scope of knowledge for many people. While people don't collect the data...they will always feel willing to interpret the meaning of the data. They will make claims without understanding the methodology or what precisely the data does/does not say.
 
More like they don't trust the integrity of the data because of the intentions or agenda of the people behind it.
 
Like I said, data interpretation.

99% of the data out there is legit....they have a problem with the interpretation of the data because they don't trust those interpreting it. Even though as this forum often demonstrates....they will take the same data and draw false conclusions from it themselves to counter the argument.

I will agree that occasionally (smaller percentage than people make it out maybe 1%) some scientists do go beyond what the data covers in interpretation. Those stories get blown up (rightfully so) but make the other 99% seem untrustworthy.
 
You trust the integrity and agenda of people in science all the time.....you just don't know it. In fact you're doing so right now.

Per the article...you selectively don't trust parts of science.
 
There is a difference between trust in science and trust in scientists. The author fails to make that critical distinction. He overlooks all the politics, social ideologies and conflicts of interest which plague the scientific establishment and simply labels anyone who refuses to accept the prevailing opinions of established authorities as suffering from cognitive dissonance. They guy is a fucking idiot of the highest order and deserves the same respect as the creationists who blindly accept whatever their parents told them growing up. He is committed to human institutions, not reality.
 
I don't think you understand what Munro's saying...the article does a poor job. Here's the abstract:
What the study is saying is that if you're presented with evidence contrary to your opinion....you're more likely to dismiss the issue as not being able to be solved by science.

In the global warming debate this happens when people say "well science can't possibly determine that, we've been here for x years and they don't have all the records....there's no way that's possible with science". That doesn't stem from a distrust of scientists. What has happened is they cannot argue with the evidence ("conclusions" section aside where a scientist injects his thoughts). The people are incapable of arguing with the science data. Either they don't understand the methodology (and therefore can't attack the methodology) or they simply disagree that such data can be obtained (which is foolish because it has).

simply put....
Regardless of whether you "trust" a scientist or an agenda....the argument is that when presented with the data (not science opinion) which contradicts your opinion entering the situation...you're more likely to leave reaffirming your belief (rather than admitting flaw in your opinion) and to do so some people will say "well they can't possible know that" or "they can't possibly reach that conclusion because they don't know everything involved".

The study also revealed that if you're willing to make that argument once....when forming an opinion about an unrelated topic you're less likely to pick a scientific source as the means to determining your new opinion.
 
This is my constant refrain about religion. Anything that teaches people that it's okay to wholeheartedly accept an argument without a shred of evidence, and then keep that argument forever in the face of contradictory evidence, is doing humanity a disservice.
 
Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (crackberry 9000: BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.304 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

Aww lawdy, yous strange word be confussing me!

Imma go drink some funny juice and hope mah hed stops a hurtin'
 
I don't want to derail this entire thread with a religion argument.

I'm trying to say that faith is, by definition, irrational, and that championing the primacy of irrational arguments over rational ones hurts humanity.
 
Way to miss the point...and by the way, no one is the business of proving negatives. Prove invisible unicorns are not pillaging my cornhole. See what I did there?
 
"faith".......... in what?




faith in god? yes, that's irrational.

faith in something not yet proven but seems likely? not necessarily irrational.
 
Sure, we trust science all the time, but we also distruct science all the time. It has nothing to do with being selective about it, but judging the sources, as TriShield said.

You of all people should know about bogus studies out there, and the media frenzy that surrounds them.

Let's take the autism link to vaccines...which was redacted recently by the journal that published the original study. And guess what? We will always have groups that still believe it.

Or how about the study that suggests that sunscreen can cause cancer?

Or how about the Lancet study that told us of the massive deaths in Iraq caused by the war...that was also recently redacted?

The list can go on and on...without even getting into global warming.

Scientists used to believe that blood was not circulated, but was created and destroyed after flowing through the body. Turned out to be wrong.

Why should we believe everything right away? Cynicism is the sign of a healthy scientist. People that believe everything they read is not a true scientist.
 
Back
Top