Are people too quick to accept "science"?

[Voodoo_Child906]

Not necessarily more rational, either. One can accept a consensus because it fits his agenda, and not understand anything about the consensus, or even care about who or why it is the consensus. They would not be more rational.

It's like suggesting that someone who studies cosmology proposes an alternative to the Big Bang, as has been seen recently. You can't suggest that someone who believes in the Big Bang is more rational or intelligent, neither is necessarily true.

I qualified the rational statement and compared it to a layman who believes the consensus and a layman who doesn't. If they are both laymen, than the one believing the consensus is more rational.

In a case like we have here, lets take me and klnOmega. I am a layman in Physics, he is not. He is supporting a theory that is out of the consensus, I cannot possibly discuss this matter with him except to say:

Maybe you are right, but until the data changes the consensus among your peers I will believe that the Big Bang is tentatively the best representation of the data.

 

[Irenaeus]

Some people will always seek doctrine, and all of us need to simplify things to form opinions on almost everything we don't have strong expertise in. I'll rather people have a good sense of critical thinking and a general strong understanding of the scientific paradigm than just parroting who they believe to be experts, but failing that, I'd rather they would seek their dogma from scientific than religious worldviews.

 

[Uchi Mata]

TCK, from the other thread that was dumped: I was trying to reply earlier but didn't realize it was dumped.

Many minds operate in the fashion in which you describe, seeking things that just reinforce our established beliefs. Free minds, and critical thinkers will always be open to the possibility that such and such is incorrect.

This is why I like engaging you in your unconventional beliefs, because perhaps...I might have it all wrong.

By the way, what did you mean by mushy dinosaur skin?

I'm familiar with the drawings, paintings and written stories of dragon lore, but not the mass graves and dinosaur skin you speak of.

Not to beat a dead horse, but people are equally frustrated at laymen who just google the consensus on a subject and imply they are more intelligent than anyone who disagrees with it. It is sometimes the case that the person who disagrees does so because they are more knowledgable in the area and disagree with some nuance, and it's the case that the laymen just suffers from a type of Dunning-Krugger effect. It's not as if knowledge and intelligence are synonymous.

I think with people who have newly become atheists (or thought about the subject at all) for the first time there's an intense sense of clarity about the nature of the world and disdain for people you consider to still be swallowing a load of BS in terms of religious faith. It's not all that different than people who read an Ayn Rand novel and spend the next 6 months thinking they're a superior producer being held back by all the jealous and weak moochers (sorry, I don't recall her actual terminology). A part of that admittedly obnoxious behavior is often adopting a mantle of extreme superiority regarding scientific knowledge even when that knowledge isn't really in the individual's possession. I struggle sometimes on here how to deal with people who I think are right about science, religion, etc. but for totally wrong reasons. 11th commandment stuff, you know.

 

[5H3RD0G]

Watch out for the science of religion group they are growing fast in order to maintain their lunacy. :icon_chee

 

[dontsnitch]

I qualified the rational statement and compared it to a layman who believes the consensus and a layman who doesn't. If they are both laymen, than the one believing the consensus is more rational.

In a case like we have here, lets take me and klnOmega. I am a layman in Physics, he is not. He is supporting a theory that is out of the consensus, I cannot possibly discuss this matter with him except to say:

Maybe you are right, but until the data changes the consensus among your peers I will believe that the Big Bang is tentatively the best representation of the data.

That's fine, the problem is that you are both intelligent and rational, so my critique will never apply to you. That is not the case with everyone who may take up a stance that happens to be the consensus.

 

[klnOmega]

So i should read all the crap that comes out because there is a chance that the vast majority of the scientific consensus is wrong?

I saw a 90 min youtube video arguing about flat earth theory. Am i a sheep for believing the earth is not flat without seeing the video?

You are a sheep because you vehemently defend something you were told, without knowing any of the reasons behind it. You certainly aren't a critical thinker, I can tell you that. You clearly have no intention of critically evaluating your beliefs.


Go back to the flat earth thread we had yesterday. When I read the OP, I didn't immediately think "wow ur a retard i know someone who said ur wrong so ur wrong". My brain immediately started questioning how I could prove him wrong. He mentioned water flying off a spinning tennis ball and not off the spinning earth. I whipped out the calculator and calculated the forces on water attached to a tennis ball, and water attached to the earth.

I don't want to sound harsh, but you'd never make it a scientist. You don't have the mindset for it.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I think it is ok to say "I don't know".

I'm not a car mechanic. I can't fix cars for shit. My car breaks, I go to a mechanic, and he tells me what is wrong, and the cost to repair it. I take is word. Depending on the cost, uncritically. If he told me it is going to be $1000, I might do some research. If it is $150, I'll probably just pull out the cash without any questions. Like you said, it is impractical to be study everything in depth. I don't have the time to become a certified mechanic to dispute him.

However, at no point will I believe myself to be superior because of my acceptance of his word. If I go to work and say to my friend "My car needs new spark plugs", and he says "Eh, I don't really think it is a spark plug issue", I don't say "Holy shit you are fucking retarded!!! How can you be so stupid. Critical thinkers like myself know this is a spark plug issue. I hope spark plug deniers like you never breed". Instead, I would be much more humble, and say that I will defer to the experts, but also admit that my friend could be right, and that I can't be sure without doing my own research (which I'm too lazy to do)

I agree with you on the issue of spark plugs.

On the issue of what it means to be a human being I disagree. I think we're all entitled to be allowed to define ourselves and that a good chunk of that definition in our age should be drawn from scientific knowledge. Few debaters that exhibit the kind of arrogance that offends you are arguing about such a mundane thing as spark plugs, in my experience.

I understand your position and I use "I don't know" probably much more often than I should but I'm not sure something akin to "shut up and calculate/live" is the answer here.

 

[kpt018]

I think it is ok to say "I don't know".

Of course, that is the reasonable position. But in my experience, the whole conversation arises when people make claims, often based on religious belief, that defy commonly understood scientific principles.

I'm not a car mechanic. I can't fix cars for shit. My car breaks, I go to a mechanic, and he tells me what is wrong, and the cost to repair it. I take is word. Depending on the cost, uncritically. If he told me it is going to be $1000, I might do some research. If it is $150, I'll probably just pull out the cash without any questions. Like you said, it is impractical to be study everything in depth. I don't have the time to become a certified mechanic to dispute him.

However, at no point will I believe myself to be superior because of my acceptance of his word. If I go to work and say to my friend "My car needs new spark plugs", and he says "Eh, I don't really think it is a spark plug issue", I don't say "Holy shit you are fucking retarded!!! How can you be so stupid. Critical thinkers like myself know this is a spark plug issue. I hope spark plug deniers like you never breed". Instead, I would be much more humble, and say that I will defer to the experts, but also admit that my friend could be right, and that I can't be sure without doing my own research (which I'm too lazy to do)

This is a good example to illustrate my point. Lets take two people who are not mechanics. One says they do not believe that cars can be repaired by man, that God fixes them after prayer. The other says I have no fucking idea how they do it, but I know that mechanics are professionals with training and I bring my car in and they fix it.

What is the more sound intellectual position? I wouldn't pretend to be a mechanic but I would feel very comfortable telling someone who thinks cars are repaired by magic that they're fucking insane.

 

[klnOmega]

This is either a science hipster post or a solipsism post and both are highly arrogant.

This post is arrogant.

 

[Rod1]

I think it is ok to say "I don't know".

I'm not a car mechanic. I can't fix cars for shit. My car breaks, I go to a mechanic, and he tells me what is wrong, and the cost to repair it. I take is word. Depending on the cost, uncritically. If he told me it is going to be $1000, I might do some research. If it is $150, I'll probably just pull out the cash without any questions. Like you said, it is impractical to be study everything in depth. I don't have the time to become a certified mechanic to dispute him.

However, at no point will I believe myself to be superior because of my acceptance of his word. If I go to work and say to my friend "My car needs new spark plugs", and he says "Eh, I don't really think it is a spark plug issue", I don't say "Holy shit you are fucking retarded!!! How can you be so stupid. Critical thinkers like myself know this is a spark plug issue. I hope spark plug deniers like you never breed". Instead, I would be much more humble, and say that I will defer to the experts, but also admit that my friend could be right, and that I can't be sure without doing my own research (which I'm too lazy to do)

Thats a pretty good point.

 

[dontsnitch]

I think with people who have newly become atheists (or thought about the subject at all) for the first time there's an intense sense of clarity about the nature of the world and disdain for people you consider to still be swallowing a load of BS in terms of religious faith. It's not all that different than people who read an Ayn Rand novel and spend the next 6 months thinking they're a superior producer being held back by all the jealous and weak moochers (sorry, I don't recall her actual terminology). A part of that admittedly obnoxious behavior is often adopting a mantle of extreme superiority regarding scientific knowledge even when that knowledge isn't really in the individual's possession. I struggle sometimes on here how to deal with people who I think are right about science, religion, etc. but for totally wrong reasons. 11th commandment stuff, you know.

Yeah, totally agree. I don't mind it per se, just as long as people acknowledge that it happens is all I really want. And since you've done so, I'm a little bit happier.

 

[TheMMAn]

Kin is spiittin' truth and taking souls up in this bitch...

 

[Rod1]

What are you not understanding?

They didn't even read his book. HE ASKED them to prove him wrong and nobody has done that.

MY GOD! You are a lap dog

Thats not how science works, if you make the claim, you are the one that needs to put forward the evidence, if you put forward the evidence, then at that point others can discredit said evidence.

Otherwise we get something like

"the book is wrong" now you need to prove me wrong when i state that the book is wrong, otherwise you are avoiding the issue.

 

[ndwolfwood]

This post is arrogant.

I'm not the one accusing people of not being smart enough to understand the positions they hold.

Oh look at me, I am constantly verifying all of my opinions all the time to make sure that everything I'm saying is correct as I'm saying it.

 

[klnOmega]

Of course, that is the reasonable position. But in my experience, the whole conversation arises when people make claims, often based on religious belief, that defy commonly understood scientific principles.





This is a good example to illustrate my point. Lets take two people who are not mechanics. One says they do not believe that cars can be repaired by man, that God fixes them after prayer. The other says I have no fucking idea how they do it, but I know that mechanics are professionals with training and I bring my car in and they fix it.

What is the more sound intellectual position? I wouldn't pretend to be a mechanic but I would feel very comfortable telling someone who thinks cars are repaired by magic that they're fucking insane.

There is a nuance here that I'm failing to get across. I'm not trying to compare the two explanations and judge which is better. I'm saying that neither of them are really being critical. I think one of them is being practical, seeing as how mechanics have a better track record than prayer, but he is still uncritically accepting the mechanics diagnosis. I'm not saying it is wrong to do, or that it isn't rational...I'm saying it is uncritical. My issue is that people accept science, and believe themselves to be critical thinkers and superior because of it.

I will accept the mechanics diagnosis. I won't believe myself to be superior to those who don't, or think that I am a critical thinker for doing though. I recognize that I am ignorant of cars, and I'm accepting his diagnosis only as an issue of practicality.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I think it is ok to say "I don't know".

I'm not a car mechanic. I can't fix cars for shit. My car breaks, I go to a mechanic, and he tells me what is wrong, and the cost to repair it. I take is word. Depending on the cost, uncritically. If he told me it is going to be $1000, I might do some research. If it is $150, I'll probably just pull out the cash without any questions. Like you said, it is impractical to be study everything in depth. I don't have the time to become a certified mechanic to dispute him.

However, at no point will I believe myself to be superior because of my acceptance of his word. If I go to work and say to my friend "My car needs new spark plugs", and he says "Eh, I don't really think it is a spark plug issue", I don't say "Holy shit you are fucking retarded!!! How can you be so stupid. Critical thinkers like myself know this is a spark plug issue. I hope spark plug deniers like you never breed". Instead, I would be much more humble, and say that I will defer to the experts, but also admit that my friend could be right, and that I can't be sure without doing my own research (which I'm too lazy to do)

That's not quite a sound analogy, though pretty damn funny. Let's say you brought your car in and had every mechanic around the world look at it and say ya we all agree it's a spark plug issue. Then your friend who has read some car magazines over lunch says, no all those guys are wrong, it's not your spark plugs. What would you say to him then?

 

[klnOmega]

I'm not the one accusing people of not being smart enough to understand the positions they hold.

I'm not either. Accepting something uncritically doesn't mean you aren't smart enough to understand it. It just means that you didn't take the time to understand it, usually as a matter of practicality.

I don't know to fix cars. Am I too stupid to be a mechanic? No. I just choose to do other things with my time.

Oh look at me, I am constantly verifying all of my opinions all the time to make sure that everything I'm saying is correct as I'm saying it.

I'm not doing that. Nor is that what I'm arguing.

But when I don't verify my opinions, I have humility about it. I recognize that I'm not actually intellectually superior to others because I just choose to uncritically accept something someone told me.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Good post, but I disagree. Certainly, they have faith (or confidence if that word offends some people) in the scientific process for sure, but that faith leads them to have faith in popular "conclusions".

Without getting too philosophical, the scientific method certainly works well enough for sure, but its almost like people think science in some areas is finished. Announce that you don't believe in the Big Bang, for example. You will be considered a mouth-breathing retard incapable of walking and chewing gum by most people here. These people believe themselves to be superior for subscribing the Big Bang theory, because they perceive it as popular with scientists. Now, I believe the scientific method will continue to undermine the Big Bang until future generations consider us silly for ever believing it, but this belief is considered heretical to many on here because it goes against the "orthodoxy", even though my belief is itself, founded in science. They aren't critical of what they believe. They just want something to believe that lets them feel superior to others who don't believe it.

While you're right that it's silly to criticize people simply for having questions about some piece of scientific thought, I think you have to look at where the criticism is coming from. If you say 'I don't believe in the big bang theory because there are some significant divergence between prediction and observation' I don't know that many people would have a problem with it. If you say 'I don't believe in the big bang theory because god created the world in 6 days' you will rightly be ridiculed for being unscientific in your assessment of the theory. Why you don't buy the theory is important. If the reason is religion that's your business, but it has nothing to do with science and what I and I think a lot of people get tired of is religious people finding holes in science not as a means of critical inquiry but rather purely because they think it strengthens their religious viewpoint. However, they are always totally unwilling to apply any of the same rigor to their beliefs. Now I don't expect the moral or spiritual parts of religious doctrine to pass muster in some scientific sense; that's silly, as those are not scientific areas of inquiry for the most part. However, in those domains in which religion makes scientific claims (e.g. about the origin of the natural world) then if you're going to accept it you either need to apply the same rigor to examining those beliefs you'd apply to any other area of science or you just need to admit that your beliefs are wholly unscientific and based in faith that lies totally outside of science.

So yes, if your skepticism of evolution or the big bang or whatever is rooted in critical analysis great. If it's just cover for protecting yourself from cognitive dissonance regarding portions of your religious doctrine, you deserve whatever ridicule you receive (at least, you do if you try to attack those theories on scientific grounds while not apply those same standards to your competing theories).

 

[kpt018]

There is a nuance here that I'm failing to get across. I'm not trying to compare the two explanations and judge which is better. I'm saying that neither of them are really being critical. I think one of them is being practical, seeing as how mechanics have a better track record than prayer, but he is still uncritically accepting the mechanics diagnosis. I'm not saying it is wrong to do, or that it isn't rational...I'm saying it is uncritical. My issue is that people accept science, and believe themselves to be critical thinkers and superior because of it.

I will accept the mechanics diagnosis. I won't believe myself to be superior to those who don't, or think that I am a critical thinker for doing though. I recognize that I am ignorant of cars, and I'm accepting his diagnosis only as an issue of practicality.

But your thought process is superior to those that think cars are repaired by magic. Your logic IS more sound, even if you do not have more expertise in the subject matter.. I'm not saying you or anyone else should be a dick about it or pretend to know something you don't.

 

[ndwolfwood]

I'm not either. Accepting something uncritically doesn't mean you aren't smart enough to understand it. It just means that you didn't take the time to understand it, usually as a matter of practicality.

I don't know to fix cars. Am I too stupid to be a mechanic? No. I just choose to do other things with my time.



I'm not doing that. Nor is that what I'm arguing.

But when I don't verify my opinions, I have humility about it. I recognize that I'm not actually intellectually superior to others because I just choose to uncritically accept something someone told me.

If your issue is with some idiot thinking he is smarter than you then the information itself is not your problem. Your insecurity is.