- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 9,540
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't have any data to back this up, but it seems there is a growing trend of pseudo-intellectuals simply parroting whatever they perceive to be the scientific consensus, and thinking themselves critical thinkers because of it.
If we talk about evolution for example. Of course, most of us believe in evolution. But how many of us have ever read primary scientific resource about it? We can talk about DNA evidence, or the fossil record, or selective breeding, etc, but how do you know how reliable this evidence really is? Who can say what DNA sequences overlap to what degree? How were they sequenced? Etc... Note, I'm not saying that their science is wrong, I'm saying that we readily accept that the are right without ever actually looking at their research. We accept the results and summary without any critical evaluation, and then consider ourselves critical thinkers for believing it.
My favorite example is Big Bang cosmology. Here and on other forums, there are people who vehemently defend the idea that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and has been expanding at an accelerating rate from a singularity that whole time. If you dare to disagree, these people will call you an unscientific idiot who is unable to think critically. Yet why do these people believe in the Big Bang? Because they were told to by a teacher, or book, or Richard Dawkins. They have only the most vague idea of the actual evidence. They will of course mention the cosmic background radiation, and the red shift, without knowing that the Big Bang is not unique in making these predictions. There a plethora of other theories which equally explain these observations, yet do not require an expansion from a singularity, and which disagree about the age of the universe. They will mention that relative abundance of isotopes in stars evidence, without even knowing what the lithium problem is (spolier: The Big Bang in the standard model actually predicts the wrong abundance of some isotopes in stars).
Now people will point to technology as evidence that we ought to believe scientists, but this is fallacious. Firstly, it is completely possible to be right for the wrong reasons. A classic example is the Bohr model of the atom. Bohr was able to correctly describe several aspects of the Hydrogen atom, without using any Quantum mechanics. He was right in his predictions, but his underlying reasoning was completely wrong. Similarly, theories on many other things we have today are "good enough" for current technology, but as new information comes to light, they can be completely subplanted the radically different theories. While we can make superconducting microchips, our theory as to why superconductivity occurs may be completely wrong, or incomplete.
A lot of people say that as society is becoming more secular, as evolution acceptance is increasing, etc... we are becoming better critical thinkers. But I don't see that at all. I still see most people as gullible idiots who believe whatever they are told...we've just traded the guy with the bible for the guy with a lab coat (and not even him directly. Usually from sources far detached from him).
If we talk about evolution for example. Of course, most of us believe in evolution. But how many of us have ever read primary scientific resource about it? We can talk about DNA evidence, or the fossil record, or selective breeding, etc, but how do you know how reliable this evidence really is? Who can say what DNA sequences overlap to what degree? How were they sequenced? Etc... Note, I'm not saying that their science is wrong, I'm saying that we readily accept that the are right without ever actually looking at their research. We accept the results and summary without any critical evaluation, and then consider ourselves critical thinkers for believing it.
My favorite example is Big Bang cosmology. Here and on other forums, there are people who vehemently defend the idea that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and has been expanding at an accelerating rate from a singularity that whole time. If you dare to disagree, these people will call you an unscientific idiot who is unable to think critically. Yet why do these people believe in the Big Bang? Because they were told to by a teacher, or book, or Richard Dawkins. They have only the most vague idea of the actual evidence. They will of course mention the cosmic background radiation, and the red shift, without knowing that the Big Bang is not unique in making these predictions. There a plethora of other theories which equally explain these observations, yet do not require an expansion from a singularity, and which disagree about the age of the universe. They will mention that relative abundance of isotopes in stars evidence, without even knowing what the lithium problem is (spolier: The Big Bang in the standard model actually predicts the wrong abundance of some isotopes in stars).
Now people will point to technology as evidence that we ought to believe scientists, but this is fallacious. Firstly, it is completely possible to be right for the wrong reasons. A classic example is the Bohr model of the atom. Bohr was able to correctly describe several aspects of the Hydrogen atom, without using any Quantum mechanics. He was right in his predictions, but his underlying reasoning was completely wrong. Similarly, theories on many other things we have today are "good enough" for current technology, but as new information comes to light, they can be completely subplanted the radically different theories. While we can make superconducting microchips, our theory as to why superconductivity occurs may be completely wrong, or incomplete.
A lot of people say that as society is becoming more secular, as evolution acceptance is increasing, etc... we are becoming better critical thinkers. But I don't see that at all. I still see most people as gullible idiots who believe whatever they are told...we've just traded the guy with the bible for the guy with a lab coat (and not even him directly. Usually from sources far detached from him).
Last edited:
