Ignorance of Science in the United States

Science is not like Mathematics and Logic, there is no real "proof", there's only the best explanation among the experts.

So how come you guys treat so many things as proof even when there has been no observation or demonstration to point to? I'd say it because you guys treat scientific consensus as gospel and are this the most ignorant among us.
 
So how come you guys treat so many things as proof even when there has been no observation or demonstration to point to? I'd say it because you guys treat scientific consensus as gospel and are this the most ignorant among us.

Those who treat scientific findings or consensus as "proof" the same way they treat Mathematical or Logical proofs are misusing the word. I'd say the person that does not have the education, expertise and experience to analyze the data and yet go against the Scientific Consensus are some of the most ignorant among us.
 
Those who treat scientific findings or consensus as "proof" the same way they treat Mathematical or Logical proofs are misusing the word. I'd say the person that does not have the education, expertise and experience to analyze the data and yet go against the Scientific Consensus are some of the most ignorant among us.

Well yes, that's true when it comes to the technical data of whatever subject. But, as you know, a lot of scientific conclusions and indeed even methodology is based entirely on logic and philosophy. In those instances anyone with a basic functioning brain is in position to go against scientific consensus. In fact only the most ignorant, as well as lazy and self doubting, among us would defer to another's logical and philosophical conclusions when they could just use their own.
 
That's nothing you should see the the fuss when you talk about irradiation of foods. The health benefits (food poisoning prevention ) storage ease and reduction in waste would be huge. However people for the most part as so uneducated on nuclear fundamentals that the word radiation makes them pee their pants when they have no understanding of it.
We should all have the right to bananas that rot in 8 hours after being picked...

Dammit.
 
Well yes, that's true when it comes to the technical data of whatever subject. But, as you know, a lot of conclusions and indeed even methodology is based entirely on logic and philosophy. In those instances anyone with a basic functioning brain is in position to go against scientific consensus. In fact only the most ignorant, as well as lazy and self doubting, among us would defer to another's logical and philosophical conclusions when they could just use their own.

Only someone truly ignorant would think that their logical and philosophical foundations are completely sound while everyone else's are false. I'm will to say I could be wrong about the world around me, are you willing to say that there could be no god and the bible could be false?
 
Well yes, that's true when it comes to the technical data of whatever subject. But, as you know, a lot of scientific conclusions and indeed even methodology is based entirely on logic and philosophy. In those instances anyone with a basic functioning brain is in position to go against scientific consensus. In fact only the most ignorant, as well as lazy and self doubting, among us would defer to another's logical and philosophical conclusions when they could just use their own.

hi TheComeBackKid,

i just had some work done on my condo and i spoke with several contractors about an issue i was having...when all of them spoke with consensus about an expensive home repair - i didn't discount their observations and go my own way.

likewise when our business needed a legal opinion on matter that had come up, we didn't discount the advice of our legal team.

likewise when there was a medical problem in our family, we didn't "come to our own conclusions" and discount the advice of the specialists we hired.

i find it strange to demean the opinions and conclusions of experts in any field.

- IGIT
 
Last edited:
Only someone truly ignorant would think that their logical and philosophical foundations are completely sound while everyone else's are false.

Example

I'm will to say I could be wrong about the world around me, are you willing to say that there could be no god and the bible could be false?

Sure, the minute my logical, philosophical, and spiritual conclusions lead my else where I'll be the first to say it.
 
hi TheComeBackKid,

i just had some work done on my condo and i spoke with several contractors about an issue i was having...when all of them spoke with consensus about an issue - i didn't discount their observations and go my own way.

likewise when our business needed a legal opinion on matter that had come up, we didn't discount the advice of our legal team.

likewise when there was a medical problem in our family, we didn't "come to our conclusions" and discount the advice of the specialists we hired.

And I don't think you should discount the opinions of others unless you have a reason to. Like for instance if you reach a different conclusion based on logical or philosophical reasons. Or you have other experts reaching different conclusions...or if the experts themselves have been discredited. There can be plenty of sound reasons to question and reject the "experts".

i find it strange to demean the opinions and conclusions of experts in any field.

- IGIT

Disagreement =/= demeaning.
 
Describe it scientifically without looking it up, right now

Intake valves opens, a mixture of fuel and air enters the combustion chamber. Valves close, piston rises in the cylinder and compresses this mixture. A spark is delivered to ignite it, creating what is essentially a small explosion. This forces the piston down the cylinder where it rotates the crank and drives pistons in other cylinders upwards where the whole thing starts over. Exhaust valves open letting the gases created from the ignited fuel/air mixture exit through your exhaust. Hence internal combustion engine.
 
Is this Russia's fault too?
 
Intake valves opens, a mixture of fuel and air enters the combustion chamber. Valves close, piston rises in the cylinder and compresses this mixture. A spark is delivered to ignite it, creating what is essentially a small explosion. This forces the piston down the cylinder where it rotates the crank and drives pistons in other cylinders upwards where the whole thing starts over. Exhaust valves open letting the gases created from the ignited fuel/air mixture exit through your exhaust. Hence internal combustion engine.
I could have done that. Maybe I underestimated myself there.
But what I was reaching for was the idea that we can be literate, or knowledgeable in one specific discipline while being essentially ignorant about another. But such is the nature of the increasingly science driven world.
 
I could have done that. Maybe I underestimated myself there.
But what I was reaching for was the idea that we can be literate, or knowledgeable in one specific discipline while being essentially ignorant about another. But such is the nature of the increasingly science driven world.

I mean I'm not a chemist or physicist but you made it sound like you barely knew what happened when you turned the key of your car. Or maybe I took it that way.

I've had to teach two adult men in the past 5 years how to jump start a car (one couldn't even identify his battery) along with how to change a tire. Unacceptable I tell ya.
 
I mean I'm not a chemist or physicist but you made it sound like you barely knew what happened when you turned the key of your car. Or maybe I took it that way.

I've had to teach two adult men in the past 5 years how to jump start a car (one couldn't even identify his battery) along with how to change a tire. Unacceptable I tell ya.
I didn't give myself enough credit, I suppose. My man card is at risk though, because the truth is, for anything not obvious, I need to call a mechanic
 
Oh yes, our life expectancy almost doubling in the past 150 years is such a terrible record for the medical community. And the 10's of thousands of crippling defects from polio this last decade were such a huge problem as well... oh wait... that never happened because modern medicine developed a vaccine! How dare our scientists fuck with nature and develop medicine...

If anything we need to brutalize/eviscerate nature far more. Nature is here to kill us, we must master it on all levels if we want to take our species to the next level.
 
You'll have to elaborate

We could all be brains in jars being fed information and everything we know about the world could be wrong without us really knowing it. Could you be wrong even though your experience is telling you you're right?

How will anyone know anything? All I can do is follow where the evidence, logic, philosophy, and spirit lead me.

Through evidence, consensus and utility. For example, The physics orthodoxy with Einstein at the helm at one time believed the universe to be deterministic . Then Bohr and others came along with their new probabilistic Quantum Model that flipped their worldview upside down. They fought and fought over the experiments but in the end the physics world had to concede because the experiments could not be denied. They changed their minds and accepted Quantum Mechanics and a probabilistic universe because of the evidence.

What would it take for you to change your mind about the bible and your god?
 
Last edited:
As an actual scientist I agree, there's a shocking lack of skill and knowledge in the general public about simple science. Math too.

There is also a misconseption about the term "science".

Economy, psychology, sociology etc. are sciences. But when people talk about "Science", they often relates it to only medicine, physics, biology, while "science" has a much marger meaning.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top