The Mistrust of Science and Scholarship

[Siegmund]

This ties in nicely with the "rejection of Sklansky" thread. People see scientists having a constructive debate -- for instance, about whether average temperatures will rise 2 or 4 degrees in the next century -- and conclude that since they can't even agree with each other they must not have anything worth the rest of us listening to. Or they hear scientists admit that something isn't completely certain to be right, and instead of hearing that there's a 99% chance of something being right, they say "either its right or its not, oh see, an idiot professor flipping a coin."

It's a fundamental problem, IMO, with the way almost all non-scientific argument is conducted. Political discussions, sermons, votes, legal trials, and a bunch of other things are conducted adversarially, each prsenter deliberately presenting convenient half-truths and concealing inconvenient half-truths. Some fool, ages ago, decided the having people from opposite positions take turns presenting half-truths was a good way of bringing the full truth to light, which it isn't.

People have no experience with the process of bringing a full and balanced truth to light. They don't see it happening around them, and they are not taught to do it - in fact, starting around age 10 or 12, people are taught that good articles/papers/etc must have a "thesis" as opposed to sticking to the facts. It's not just a mistrust of science, it's a flaw in how the vast majority of people, even thinking people, present information and expect to see it presented.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

don't we think we know better than leading tobacco scientists or theologians?

(fwiw, i agree that man-made global warming is extremely likely)

[/ QUOTE ]

Theologians aren't scientists. I'm talking about factual claims that people have spent lives researching and are falsifiable. I'm not saying that we should believe all 'experts'. But when practically 100% of all peer-reviewed scientific journal articles support a claim, I am pretty inclined to believe it.

If you are talking about scientists who work for the tobacco companies when you say 'leading tobacco scientists', I have another reason for doubting their claims. Basically all scientists who don't work for the tobacco companies disagree with them. If the prevailing opinion in peer-reviewed scientific journals was that cigarettes aren't bad for you, I would believe it. Unfortunately it is entirely clear that they are terribly addictive and terribly detrimental to our health.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're saying environmental scientists have no reason to make an environmental threat sound more dangerous or even fabricate one?

[PLOlover]

I think if I were arguing this I would go with the homosexuality being called good by the intellectuals, and of course it being viewed as deviancy by normal people and their "peasant mentality". I can't think of anything more in direct conflict. well maybe the intellectuals position that men and women are exactly the same, but that's not all of the intellectuals like the view on homosexuality is.

My point is how can the commoner trust the ivory tower when their morality is 180 off?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

you're saying environmental scientists have no reason to make an environmental threat sound more dangerous or even fabricate one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. But I am saying that it would be EXTREMELY difficult for them to have such a widespread consensus if they were working on fabricated claims. I believe there is still disagreement on how serious of a threat global warming is. There is basically no disagreement that man-made causes are contributing to this trend however.

I don't think people realize how many people work in this field. For this "conspiracy" to work, every single new professor who goes into climatology would have to be in on it. Every PhD student coming out would have to buy into the lie. There would be a HUGE incentive to buck the trend because you would gain instant name recognition and publicity if you could do a scientific study that backs up your claims.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example of an established scientific claim that the general public rejects?

[/ QUOTE ]

homosexuality, although psychology is not a real science of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality is an established scientific claim that the general public rejects?

[Deorum]

Well, as you mention there is a difference between skepticism and misunderstanding. We should be skeptical of new data, as well as old data. We should insist on properly documented information. When somebody tries to convey information of which we have no knowledge, our response ought to be, "show me." It is important that we get the facts straight before we begin to invest resources on a potential problem. We can be concerned about a subject before we have all of the facts, but concern should lead to further investigation to ensure that whatever the potential problem is, is in fact a problem. Otherwise we will wind up prioritizing incorrectly, wasting resources of all kinds (time, human resources, energy, natural resources, etc.) as well as potentially causing damage to other situations.

One thing important to understand here is that for the most part scientific studies and the data collected in those studies are accurate. However, inaccuracies occur when people and organizations skew those results, take them out of context, and manipulate them to create misinformation to support whatever it is that they are claiming. This manipulation tarnishes the credibility of these organizations, and I think this is a large part of the reason why many people are so hesitant to believe what they hear. You have to understand that while we all should demand evidence for what we hold to be true, most of us don't. And many don't understand the difference between information and propaganda.

Many people want to have an agenda about which to be concerned. Humans like controversy. This is why when you open a newspaper, it is easy to find bad news. Bad news is what sells. Nobody wants to read a story titled, "Everything's Okay: There is Nothing Going On" because it is boring and offers nothing new. When a new story emerges, there are basically three types of people: those who do not care about it (either because they are lazy or it does not affect them), those who demand to see the evidence so they can understand and see it for themselves, and those who believe it and accept it as truth without any evidence. It is this last group of people who are searching for an agenda, any agenda, about which to be passionate. Let's call them lemmings.

The topic which came up on this thread has been environmentalism, and it is a great example, so let us use that. Certainly, envrionmental issues are important. Nobody wants our environment to deteriorate. However, there is a stunningly large amount of misinformation and hysteria about how bad our environment currently is. This is in large part due to our preference for bad news. Many environmental organizations propagate misinformation in both their own publications, as well as other forms of media, in order to gain support from the lemmings. Claiming that the world is in danger of coming to an end is just about the scariest and worst thing you can say. And the lemmings eat it up. What they do not realize is these organizations at their cores are really not driven so much by environmental issues, but are more driven by socialism, anti-government, and anti-corporatism. They use environmental issues to rally the lemmings for their political causes and as fund raisers, because these are the people who are most easily manipulated. They cannot manipulate those who do not care, nor can they manipulate those who check their claims. But they can manipulate people who are looking for an agenda without actually understanding it.

These lemmings' typical reaction to anything to the contrary of what they "know" to be true is then to become defensive. Anything that could possibly contradict what they stand for must be inaccurate. They become infuriated. They adopt the motto, "anything for the environment." They refuse to consider a cost-benefit analysis. In its place, they claim that if it's good for the environment, it should be done. Nevermind the cost. Nevermind how much it will hinder the growth of the human species. Nevermind the other problems going on in the world. And certainly nevermind any evidence to the contrary. This is also a large part of where that mistrust comes from. People who believe what they want to believe, and who do not know the difference between propaganda and information in the first place. These people know that there is misinformation out there, they just do not understand from whom it is coming or how to tell the difference.

I wanted to post more, as well as some examples, but I do not have the time to cite anything right now. I'll check back in when I can.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Homosexuality is an established scientific claim that the general public rejects?

[/ QUOTE ]

ask almost anyone with an advanced degree and they'll tell you it is perfectly normal and everyone should consider it normal and ask any poor uneducated person and they'll tell you it is bad and something is wrong with such a person.

[UATrewqaz]

[ QUOTE ]
normal

[/ QUOTE ]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Siegmund]

"Almost anyone" strikes me as a significant overbid, too.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
but the last time they did this, with the whole "global cooling" scenario in the 70's, the prevailing idea was, in fact, chopped off and thrown aside.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry can you point to one single NAS or SCOPE report that predicted global cooling? oh ya... there aren't any.

The problem with science is that the mainstream media is willing to lie their ass off about what scientists are actually saying. In the 70's Newsweek lied cuz it fit their liberal agenda. Now the WSJ is lying cuz it fits their conservative agenda.

The scientists tend to get caught in the middle of this mess . What makes the situation even more disgusting is when a physicist (like the one I'm replying to) gets fooled by this nonsense.